User talk:Sturmvogel 66

Descending from the heavens

I have returned from my Wikibreak. And how better to mark that by archiving my talk page?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back

Great to see you back, Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can start to do some reviewing once I finish off salvaging the pesky German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass ACR in the next couple of days.

Glad you're back! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back from your Wikisabbatical. Pennsy22 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, great to see you back, Sturm. Hope you are well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. Welcome back, Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back. I hope that you will create more articles that I can translate to pl.wiki :) PMG (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, one of these days, I hope to return the favor and expand the articles on the Polish ships in WW2 as I'm fairly certain that they're better covered in Polish than in English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Just because I assume you hate recieving WikiLove, and goats got added to the options list for reasons I'm not aware of... ;-) Welcome back!

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Little do you know I'd been watching videos about raising goats for the farm that I'll buy whenever I win the lottery! Look like too much trouble to me, though. Which of course makes them a perfect symbol for my trouble-making self.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Italicizing Russian

MOS:ITALICS has the answer you were asking of Anomalocaris: Don't italicize non-English material that's not in Latin-based script; the very fact that it's in Cyrillic is enough to set it apart as non-English. For such a language, the practice is to italicize the Romanization, not the Cyrillic (or Greek, or Japanese, or whatever) original, and not the English gloss (which goes in single quotes, per MOS:SINGLE). The {{lang|ru}} markup goes around the original-language word. Example: Russian самизда́т samizdat, 'self-published'. It can also be done with a single {{lang-ru}} template: {{lang-ru|самизда́т|samizdat|self-published}}, which produces: Template:Lang-ru. (That's a bit long-winded for every use, so we don't always use that template; once the order is established, it's annoying to the reader to have "Russian:", "translit.", and "lit." again and again in the same material.) Doing it with {{lang|ru}} and manual markup instead of {{lang-ru}} also allows a different presentation order, e.g.: Soviet censorship was evaded by dissident publications termed samizdat (самизда́т, 'self-published' in Russian).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't investigated deeply enough to notice that you could have both the transliteration and the translation in the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph not a RS?

I'm assuming these removals imply the source isn't a reliable one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As he's an avowed neo-Nazi, I don't think that we can trust anything that he says. While the Fa 223 may have been considered for the rescue mission, you should be able to confirm it from better sources, either on the better books on German helicopters or books on the rescue mission itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I did manage to trip over the main discussion and yeaaaaah, we can do better. (Also how did I forget to sign that earlier. Bah!). Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little reluctant to wipe out all of the citations without looking at the book. It may well be a very model of proper sourcing without POV pushing, but I'm not particularly inclined to lay down money that that's the case. The Fa 223 cite was trivial enough that removing it did no damage to the article, but that's not the case in a couple of other articles that I looked at.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not just the fact that he's a neo-Nazi or a sexual predator, he's also a peddler of junk science, and he has no academic credentials. He could very well have written two fine history books, but that doesn't mean he's any better than any self-published hobbyist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Taken together, nothing he's ever written has any place here. Parsecboy (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good topic

Hello, I've nommed a good topic on the Type 1934-class destroyers, after getting the lead article (Type 1934-class destroyers) to GA. I've listed you as a main contributor since you've done a ton of the work involved; Though I should tell you, and ask if you think I should add anyone else in on to the "Main contributors". Cheers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

They were mostly my work, although you could check their edit histories to see if anyone else made major contributions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Military history A-Class medal with diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing St Vincent-class battleship, HMS Neptune (1909), and German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass to A-Class status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Adelabde Dutcher

Nice article. But I was wondering about the name...this says "Adelaide". Seems more likely to me, but I don't have your source in front of me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. There's a typo in the heading of my source, but the body says Adelaide. And I looked at it so many times to ensure that I spelled it properly! So I've moved it to the proper spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I know how that is. Happens to me all the damn time. My favorite is when I look at an article some months after creating it and discover a pesky little punctuation error that I missed the first time.

Happy editing and contest-ing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't catch Miyagawa, but I'm doing pretty well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Good show!

Gotta say, you were definitely a worthy opponent for The World Contest. I'm impressed and more than a little embarrassed that you always managed to be two articles ahead me - good show. Enjoy the book money my friend, you earned it. –Vami_IV✠ 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you pushed me far harder than I expected today! I had rather thought that I could just sort of cruise through the day, carefully adding articles where they'd do me the most good overall, not focused on pumping them out as fast I could, just trying to stay ahead of you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian biographies

Hi, Sturmvogel 66! I saw you wrote some Canadian biographies for the WIR Contest. If you'd like, you can also submit these to The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Please use this link for convenience. Thanks for all your amazing work on the contest! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

An exceptional barnstar for you

	The World Contest Laurels
	Congratulations for finishing 2nd place in the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the hard work! I make it $652.50 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings in the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need the books on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yourself, for running a great contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not join Women in Red?

		Thank you for creating articles on women and their works over the past few weeks as a participant in our World Contest. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. If you would like to receive news of future WiR events and participate in our discussions, you might now be interested in becoming a member of Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for December: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|Seasonal celebrations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|First ladies]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|Go local]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

1st SS Police Regiment

Hi there. I don't edit in military history at all, but I ran into you through your comment at User talk:OberRanks and thought you'd be interested in this discussion at Talk:Lion Guard. This appears to be OR's typical pattern, and dealing with it can end up being quite time-consuming. They were warned by ArbCom years ago not to engage in this sort of conduct. I don't even know if you can call it original research. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturm, see here for the motivation about this contact [1]. Pretty sad this guy is monitoring my talk page, trying to keep the battle alive. Anyway, thank you for your great additions to the 1st SS regiment article. I will look around for specific texts which place it under the Spree police command. Good night! -O.R.^Comms 07:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, looks like your beating me to it, expanding the articles on the SS and police. I am actually prohibited from writing on Wikipedia about these as I'm under a publishing contract right now. I think you will like a book which is due out next year. In the meantime, keep up the good work! -O.R.^Comms 02:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just laying out the skeleton for all the regiments with their organizational histories for the nonce. Maybe I'll return and fill out the articles once I dig up more coverage of their post-formation activities. My sources to hand don't really cover their individual battalions after they become part of the regiments, so we'll just have to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello, and great work on the Women in Red contest! Would you mind adding a short paragraph talking about your work at User:Eddie891/sandbox/WomenInRedContest for coverage on The Signpost? Thank You! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your content work and for coming back to the project I am pleased to personally award you with this barnstar and add you to my 2017 New Years Honours List. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Military History. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert. It's good to be back.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same to you from the eastern seaboard!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

HH!

		Happy Holidays! Happy New Year!
		Thinking of you and wishing you good health and happiness. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And the same to you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Cheers, Sturm. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope you had a good Christmas like I did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately not pinging

as that could be verging on harassment by now :) but I was slightly unsure as to how to take your final sentence. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thorough review

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for all your ideas, suggestions and help. Maybe see you soon  ;) Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It was good working with you. Hopefully I'll hear from you soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Back again, Sturmvogel ... I wonder if you'd care to glance over this stub ;) (officially, anyway!), and see if you want to run with it? Happy new year, of course (belatedly). >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've claimed it, but I've some other stuff on my plate before I get to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE = WP:NOWORRIES  :) cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I see what you mean  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Err: sorry sturmvogel  :) any chance you could guesstimate a point at which your plate will have emptied sufficiently for this to be attacked / looked at...? No pressure; but a rough idea would be appreciated. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; but probably not before the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with "way too broad"?

Hi,

I was wondering why you said "way too borad" at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kotor-class_frigate&oldid=prev&diff=818124394 , the ship class is in active service and it is therefore logical to connect/link to the page List of naval ship classes in service. Dragnadh (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A better fit would be "list of frigate classes in service" so you could compare them to equivalent ships in other navies. Comparing them to destroyer or minesweepers does nothing because they're so different.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point. I find the list also very broad and cluttered, however, I did not make it and it seems to be used by others, that's why I though to link active classes to it, in a way to help. It would be better to have a list of submarines(exist already: List of submarine classes in service), frigates, destroyers etc. I do not mind splitting the current page up, but I will probs get into arguments with people who already made that bloated page. Dragnadh (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be better just to create the ones that you want as I think that a list of all classes in service is so big that it's functionally useless, although it appeals to certain types who think that lists should be capped by an higher, ultimate list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 I opened a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles I would appreciate your input there. Dragnadh (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Erin

The article HMS Erin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Erin 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

South American Battleships 1908–59: Brazil, Argentina and Chile's great dreadnought race

Seeing the above planned title in Osprey's 2018 New Vanguard series obviously caught my attention. ;-) But you might be interested in Soviet Destroyers of World War II, Italian Cruisers of World War II, and British Ironclads 1860–75: HMS Warrior and the Royal Navy's 'Black Battlefleet'. cc Parsecboy Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, hopefully they've managed to tap some foreign-language sources; otherwise I suspect that the three of us could have written 3 or 4 of the ship titles by ourselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Every time I see one of these Ospreys come out on topics we've already covered, I wonder how much they're just cribbing our stuff. It is interesting to see how we've largely progressed past where Ospreys have been useful sources - there was a time when Gary Staff's books on German battleships and battlecruisers were required for those articles, but since I've gotten access to Hildebrand, I've noticed that Staff's books are more or less translations of Hildebrand, usually with some material elided. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully none of them are by Angus Kostam, I was working with that retired editor who did the King George Vs and was using the Osprey as a main source a few years ago and I found all sorts of contradictory stuff on the light AA armament in more thorough books which I trust more. That said, I hope the Soviet DD book has more stuff on the post-war careers of the surviving destroyers than that one article from Warship. Which is probably why I've never tried to upgrade the articles on the DDs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got one of Konstam's books at one point and wasn't impressed. Certainly not up to Staff's quality, and even that isn't all that useful at this point.

The Cold War's been over for almost 30 years now (has anybody told Putin?) - you'd think Polmar or somebody would have gotten over there by now to access the old Soviet archives for work along the lines of Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, 1718-1990. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Putin locked down the archives a decade or two ago to all but Russian nationals, IIRC, although I'm seeing more stuff showing up of late from Western historians, so maybe some restrictions have been loosened. There's tons of Russian ship books that have been published, although my few dozen words of Russian and crappy machine translating have barred me from trying to use them much. It was great when I could get Russian-reading coauthors a few years back, but they've all GAFIA'ted. We just need to teach Norman Friedman Russian! He's got to be desperate for new topics to research as he's virtually exhausted English-language topics once his forthcoming book on British predreadnoughts comes out later this year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't been following it all that closely. I wonder if there's anybody you could recruit from ru.wiki. Guess we should send Friedman a copy of Rosetta Stone? Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I poked around a few years ago, but the warships on .ru are not well covered. Kinda like .fr where our coverage is generally better than theirs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Shame about the poor quality of the Osprey books, though I suppose I'm not surprised (with the benefit of hindsight). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There's only so much you can do when you've only got 48 pages to cover a bunch of ships and their war. Decent introductory stuff, but rarely much more than that. Although they at least have bibliographies now, so at least you can delve deeper if you want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Centurion-class battleship

The article Centurion-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Centurion-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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Police Regiment Centre

Hi, some queries have been posted to the Talk page; would appreciate your feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Military history A-Class medal with diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing German destroyer Z2 Georg Thiele, Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894), and HMS Vanguard (1909) to A-Class status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Centurion (1892)

The article HMS Centurion (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Centurion (1892) 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) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Barfleur (1892)

The article HMS Barfleur (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Barfleur (1892) 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) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Groscurth GA

Saw your ping, sorry for the delay, I've been very busy. I'm assuming it's in reference to requested changes to the article. I hope to have a crack at it in the next day. I just haven't had the time to get on but I'll see what I can set aside tonight or tomorrow. Thank you again. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A little question or asking

Hello , I'm Comrade John from other language Wikipedia.

Just like the title said , what kind of ships and how many ships that Royal Navy wanted to build in the 1938, 1939, and 1940 Naval Programmes ?

I just looked at "Lion-class battleship" , something makes me wonder but can't find information online , so yeah.

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I don't know the actual totals, only the numbers for certain classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Such as ? Some big ship like Battleship and Aircraft carrier ? -- Comrade John (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Depends, usually the class article discusses how many ships of that class were ordered in each naval programme.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok , be straight. I'm asking Lion-class battleship , is it true that Royal Navy wanted to build two Lion-class battleships in 1938 , 1939 and 1940 Naval Programmes ? No other additional battleship planned to build in those Naval Programmes ? Cause except those four , I never see other two's information in other language Wikipedia and other online sources , even in construction section of Lion-class battleship article in English Wikipedia. So what's their background about it ? Are those two have names and pennant number ? -- Comrade John (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The 5 King George V-class ships were ordered under the 1936 and 1937 programs, so the Lions were the only battleships ordered in the three subsequent programs. No names or pennant numbers were ever assigned to the last two ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you , brother. Found something related to Lion-class and it's Naval Programmes in Japanese Wikipedia. If you can translate Japanese to English , you might find it great value to translate this one -- Comrade John (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold

Hello,

Are you going to continue your review of the above?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You have't yet responded to my last round of comments on the 6th, so I just figured you were too busy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not too busy. And when I wrote the above, I was current with my responses. And, rookie at GAN that I am, I thought I would receive some notice of responses needed. I didn't put my nom on my watchlist because when I tried that I was overrun with every item that happened in every GAN. My response to you is tied to my remembering to check back.

Anyhow, I have responded to all your suggestions to date, and I await your "More later".Georgejdorner (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Once you get notified that someone has started the review of your nom, you have to go in and watchlist the review itself. It's kinda of an awkward process, I agree. I'll try to knock out some more tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have worked on the suggestions you posted earlier today. I eagerly await your next critique.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I have answered your review concerns, in my own inimitable fashion.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been checking the GAN page daily. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It has now been two weeks since your last edit on this review. If you do not have time to complete the review, could you please place it back into nomination for another reviewer's attention?

Thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies; real life issues have kept me mostly offline this last week. I've finished the review and have requested a second opinion on the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have skipped two sections in your review--1917 and 1918. At any rate, we are seven weeks into a half done seven day review that is accomplishing little to improve the article. You seem to lack the time and energy for reviewing, and I can accept that. No hard feelings...please just flunk the nom so I can throw it back in the pool for another editor.

Thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French cruiser Pothuau

The article French cruiser Pothuau you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French cruiser Pothuau 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Military history A-Class medal with diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing Petropavlovsk-class battleship, German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz, and Type 1934-class destroyer to A-Class status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

McTiernan

I'm sorry. I really did not mean to cause the acrimony I seem to have caused. I became interested in the International Squadron after encountering it multiple times in ship histories, and when I found McTiernan it seemed to me to be a scholarly and well-researched work that shed a lot of light on the squadron and clarified vague discussions of various aspects of the squadron's operations mentioned in and corroborated by other sources. I found the International Squadron article that existed consisted of three sentences, and so I saw an opportunity to really improve Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, which I thought I had done. It seems to me that we should be able to build articles based on existing sources that include reasonable levels of scholarship and then improve on them over time as other (better) sources are found, and I would ask that we follow that approach rather than delete everything based on some arbitrary standard that may not reflect true scholarship. And, after working on the article for a month or so, I have no sources that contradict the McTiernan in any major way, and have tried to indicate cases where sources disagree on precise figures or dates.

As for the citation format, I meant no harm. I have not encountered anyone angered by the format I used before, and do not understand why it would provoke an emotional reaction. But I assume there is a good reason, and so, for that, again, I apologize. If it's that important to you, I can backtrack and fix it so that you don't have to, although please give me a week or two to find to do it in my spare time.Mdnavman (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

I think that you've done good work with the International Squadron article that I created and essentially abandoned many years ago. The problem is that with only a MA, McTiernan doesn't meet the criteria to be considered RS, something that's very important when articles are formally assessed. Parsecboy and myself, among others, have worked many hours to improve battleship and ship articles in general up to Good Article quality and beyond and we're loath to have somebody come along and downgrade our work became some other editor starts adding material that doesn't meet all of the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.

Until McTiernan writes his Ph.D. thesis or publishes a book on the Cretan Intervention, we really can't use his material in articles where his reliability is going to be formally judged. What we can use are his original sources like the newspaper articles and the like; we'd just need to see if that material is online or if that information is mentioned in other sources like Clowes which meet the WP:RS criteria. That, as I'm sure that you're aware, would be a lot of work.

I just got upset because consistency of format is very important when an article is being assessed at A-class or Featured Article and you've added inconsistently formatted books to a whole bunch of articles that Parsecboy and I have, or are planning to work on. Most editors don't really care about this sort of stuff because they're not striving to meet the Featured Article criteria, which is why you haven't been getting complaints from anyone else. We do that sort of thing automatically by now as it saves a ton of work if we decide to sent an article up to A-class review or Featured Article candidates. I'm not sure how much urgency Parsec feels about fixing all this stuff, but I'm not in any particular hurry and I'd appreciate it if you can take care of things yourself so that I don't have to do it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For those wondering, I've gone ahead and removed references to McTiernan from the articles I've written, leaving what I could to Clowes and other sources. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese battleship Ise

The article Japanese battleship Ise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese battleship Ise 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A US women or a ship contest?

Hi, I've created Wikipedia:Contests/Toolkit/Template based on the very successful women contest model. It will make setting up a new contest really easy on any topic. You might be interested in running a contest for the US or ships or something based on the model. If so I'd be happy to help you set it up and guide you to getting a grant and participants.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing equal first in the January 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with 98 points from 11 articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Evanescence

I feel you may have forgotten this - you didn't respond to the ping, either. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

TFA

This is to let you know that the HMS St Vincent (1908) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 3, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 3, 2018. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ship which "had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired during the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Type 1934 destroyers

Hello Sturmvogel
I notice you removed the source I added to the infobox here (viz), with the edit summary "cited in the main body". Is there a rule, then, that says if some information is given twice it can only be sourced once?
The reason for adding the source was that, if the information is wrong (or at least, different to any information the reader may have, as it was here, and here) and there's no indication where it came from, then it is unverifiable (something we do have a rule about): And if the information is to be sourced, then it is logical to put it with the information it is supporting, so that the reader doesn't have to scour the article to find it.
So is there a good reason why we shouldn't source infoboxes? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:INFOBOXREF--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's clear enough (though hardly logical, IMO). I notice the values for the displacement in the General Characteristics section were changed, though the reference stayed the same; do the two sources ( Groener, and Koop&Schmolke) agree with each other now? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to be a summary and thus doesn't need to be sourced independently of the main body. Just like the lede. Gröner provides figures for various displacements in either long or metric tons, which are easy to confuse if you're not careful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 97 automatic cannon

The article Type 97 automatic cannon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 97 automatic cannon 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) 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese cruiser Sakawa

The article Japanese cruiser Sakawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Sakawa 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

HMS Eglinton

Hi, greetings As per the page above, if it is no a disam page, and would like to make it to a list page, then the title should change to List HMS Englinton. As the present stage, no citation and content does not constitution an article. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Be so good as to read WP:SETINDEX and look at HMS Hunter for an example of a far fuller version--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alt text for image - Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū

You deleted the alt text for an image in this article without explanation, which causes certain readers to display the file name fo rthe image. The main purpose of alt text is to provide a description of an image for readers with visual impairment. See WP:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images. I'd be happy to discuss this further, perhaps on the talk page of the article. Easchiff (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Easchiff: Given the edit in question, this seems to be more of a question for Template:Infobox ship begin...? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion belongs to a particular infobox. The use of alternative text for images is a Wikipedia policy. It's enough work to write these that relatively few articles are compliant. However, I think it is particularly important for featured and good articles such as this one. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Easchiff: Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, there's no provision for alt text in that infobox. (Sturm's edit there removed the page from Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax, aka the defined image size.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't gotten the point. I'll look into it some more. It would be odd for an infobox template with allowance for images to not include a way to add alternative text. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z33

The article German destroyer Z33 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z33 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Unnecessary"?

What exactly was unneccesary?

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding periods at the end of the cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, I can think of a revert that was even more unneccessary, off-the-scale so actually. What's with you and periods? There is punctuation already in the references, so why should that particular punctuation go?

Also, you re-introduced some MOS errors in the article, but I will leave it to you to find out which.

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z34

The article German destroyer Z34 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z34 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z30

The article German destroyer Z30 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z30 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z27

The article German destroyer Z27 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z27 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z28

The article German destroyer Z28 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z28 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z29

The article German destroyer Z29 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z29 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z26

The article German destroyer Z26 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z26 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Lexington

This is a good example of an article that is taken to FA in obscurity (except to you, the person writing it) and then, years later, unexpectedly being on the front pages of media sources across the Western world, resulting in the 200,000+ views this article has received the last couple of days. Thus, it's especially good that you sacrificed your time to honor this ship with an article of that quality so so many people could read and learn from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You are very kind. Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z17 Diether von Roeder

The article German destroyer Z17 Diether von Roeder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z17 Diether von Roeder 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z23

The article German destroyer Z23 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z23 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z24

The article German destroyer Z24 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z24 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z18 Hans Lüdemann

The article German destroyer Z18 Hans Lüdemann you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z18 Hans Lüdemann 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z19 Hermann Künne

The article German destroyer Z19 Hermann Künne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z19 Hermann Künne 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z37

The article German destroyer Z37 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z37 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks

		The GA barnstar
		Thanks for all your GA reviews generally, but for Emanuel Moravec specifically. Chetsford (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I wish they all needed as little works as yours did!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp

The article German destroyer Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z25

The article German destroyer Z25 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z25 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen, HMS Erin, and Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō MilHistBot (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bertke

Frankly, very surprised by your attitude towards Bertke, and by extension to Don Kindell, since the books are mostly based of his work. Are you saying Don Kindell have no qualifications to be considered a reliable source?? Crook1 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be accurate based on my understanding of the individuals, all of whom appear to be amateur historians who have only produced self-published works. See WP:SELFPUBLISH (and WP:RS more broadly) for more information. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Bertke, et al., may well be correct about what they say, but we cannot take them on their word without some sort of indicator that they actually know something about the topic. Preferably publication through a recognized publisher or journal or a PhD in the topic. Web publication on places like naval-history.net doesn't count because you or I could write up something ourselves just as easily as Kindell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know Kindell was commended for his work by Royal Navy Historical Archives, so I don't think you can that easily equate him with a regular Joe. I also disagree with you that you need a Ph D to go to archives and basically compile a list from various ROMs, which basically what these books are all about. One would be required to have a degree to discuss events, battles and their consequences in detail, etc but not to simply take data from a ship's ROM. Crook1 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read either of the links I provided? What you or I individually think about a source is irrelevant - Wikipedia has defined the requirements for a source to be considered reliable, and Bertke, et al. doesn't make the grade. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

of course I read them. By this is not my opinion of Kindell, but the Royal Navy's, surely it's worth something. And about those rules, even in the court of law every judge has certain degree of discretion as to how to apply the law. Rules mean nothing without enforcement. Rules are enforced by people, so the question really is who's enforcing them? Are these rules military orders, or are they flexible which I believe they should be.Crook1 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSN is where you can make your case that Bertke, et al., should be counted as RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z36

The article German destroyer Z36 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z36 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z35

The article German destroyer Z35 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z35 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z20 Karl Galster

The article German destroyer Z20 Karl Galster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z20 Karl Galster 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z43

The article German destroyer Z43 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z43 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer Z22 Anton Schmitt

The article German destroyer Z22 Anton Schmitt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer Z22 Anton Schmitt 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Izumo

Thanks for the correction on the Asama - I hadn't spotted it up there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwong64 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 Milhist article writing contest

		The WikiChevrons
		For coming first in the March 2018 Milhist article writing contest, with 226! points from 23 articles, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Never the Bride for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never the Bride is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never the Bride until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GRuban (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German destroyer ZH1

The article German destroyer ZH1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German destroyer ZH1 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Murgescu as a cruiser

Hey mate. I knew that paragraph was unsourced, but I found something that drove me to do it anyway. The Turks during WW2 had a class of two cruisers. Each of these vessels was lighter, lesser ranged and lesser armed than Murgescu (2 x 88 mm and 4 x 37 mm). So taking them as the lowest common denominator, I found it a bit unfair that Murgescu has no shot at being called a cruiser, despite sharing a sea with two lesser warships that were cruisers. Besides, she would deserve it. Murgu may have been small, but she fought like a lioness and dished it out like a ship twice her size. She'll always be an "honorary cruiser" to me. That said I won't try to re-add that section, I was aware I was kinda trying my luck with it anyway. Torpilorul (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things, Torpilorul - the Peyk-i Şevket-class cruisers were built more than thirty years before Murgescu, and what might qualify as a cruiser in 1907 might well not in 1939. Modern destroyers are five times the size of destroyers from the WWII-era, for instance, which are themselves the size of light cruisers from the turn of the century. More importantly, lots of sources refer to the Peyk-i Şevkets as cruisers, and none as far as I'm aware call Murgescu one.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I see you both edited the article while accidentally logged out - if you'd like me to delete those revisions to hide your IPs, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

To spell out what I meant in my edit summary a little more fully; it doesn't matter what we think, only what our sources say. And sometimes, they'll differ, which is about the only time that we get to choose which one to use. But not always, q.v. the recent discussion about what to call torpedo boats that the Germans sold to the Turks, who called them destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, so it really is about when a ship is built. Anyway, I got my first Barnstar today, the original one even. This makes me really happy, and emboldens me to carry on the battle. There are greaseballs all over this world who aim to delete my country from history, for some reason, and I'm part of the resistance. Torpilorul (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Good for you! Just be careful not to go overboard; you're not here to right a great wrong. Only to accurately depict Romania's role in history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I can do both. There are good and honest authors that I can and do use. I won't go overboard, as said in my manifesto on my user page, I'm not a BS-er. What consolation can I have if I put out an easily-debunkable and unprovable lie? Why would I lie, even, the amount of fleet strength and combat effectiveness of my country's WW2 navy surpassed my wildest imaginations by far. But there are some things I am not afraid to say I utterly despise. Like "authors" who list only the Germans in major battles in which a good chunk of the action was done by Romanians. Just because they don't want to have another nation to memorize. I'm sorry for getting heated like this but this really grinds my gears, we pour our blood in the Russian steppe only to have some wiseguy decades later subjectively deem that our contribution is not worth mentioning. I'm suuuuure that if our soldiers knew they would be such a burden, they would have just surrendered on the spot! (sarcasm) "Well, Romania is not a notable nation." If these greaseballs keep deleting us from history, no s**t we ain't! Torpilorul (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it goes without saying, but I'm a huge naval hipster. Most are "the smaller the navy the less I care", but I take a small navy as a challenge. And since I'm pretty much done with my country's navy (as much as I love it, there's only so much you can write about it, it's still of microbial size compared to the Great Powers), I'm gonna take on a real challenge: pre-WW2 Albania. Already have some sources I saved up for this. Torpilorul (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. I checked Conway's 1922-1946 volume; all they had during that period were two ex-German minesweepers and three motorboats. I'd very doubtful that the latter are notable unless you've got some very specific sources on their activities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - you might consider trying to expand Albanian Naval Force first, and spinning out ship articles as the material available warrants. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Torpilorul, do your sources actually call the coastguard cruisers that you list in List of cruisers of Romania as cruisers? I don't have Jane's and can't check, but they're so small that I'm very doubtful that this is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir they most certainly are. My first reaction was "Wait what?". This is really working out for me. Three of these coastguard cruisers were still in use in WW2 as river gunboats. So: my country gets to have purpose-built cruisers, which even though are smaller and weaker than our destroyers and create what would normally be an anomaly, they are rendered to river service and thus create no confusion in our Black Sea Fleet. Tell you what, I sent you an E-mail requesting Albania's section from Conway's 1922-1946. You send it, then I send you Jane's source. Torpilorul (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, but there's literally nothing there other than stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, right, I forgot. Here's my email: [email protected] Send Albania, and I'll send Jane's. Take your time, I'll be going to bed now. You know, time zones. 'Later sir. Torpilorul (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov

The article Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Imperieuse

[The IWM says this is the Imperieuse in WW I, what do you say? Are you saying the Audacious was not re-named the Imperieuse in 1914? Broichmore (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were trying to do, but that picture wasn't really appropriate for the infobox. It should have been added to the last paragraph of the main body where the ship's service as part of HMS Imperieuse is covered. See HMS Imperieuse (training establishment) for more detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I agree, with what your saying. I put it in the infobox because it's the real deal and not a looky likey. So I'll put the image back in against the last paragraph, that, and the commons link you deleted. Agreed?Broichmore (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm not really sure that the commons link is necessary, but I don't have any serious objection to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Borodino class battlecruiser at FAC

I was sort of biding my time to see how you responded to Eric's feedback before I dug in. What do you think? I could always try to help with some revisions from an outsider's perspective. --Laser brain (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been preparing to move these last several weeks and haven't really had the time to properly respond to Eric. I'll try to get to them tonight or tomorrow and then you can take a look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 27 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian battleship Pobeda scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Russian battleship Pobeda has been scheduled as today's featured article for 10 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I when the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II."! What a story. - What a talk page, all thee quality articles! I have some GAs open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I'll try to take a look at some of your stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Doria-class battleship selected as TFA for 21 June 2018

This is to let you know that the Andrea Doria-class battleship article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 21, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and Parsecboy, and all who helped, for the two ships which "had relatively uneventful careers for vessels that were in service for both world wars. They spent WWI in port but did see some action during WWII, including the raid on Taranto in 1940, where Caio Duilio was torpedoed. Both ships survived the war and were permitted to remain in Italian hands - they continued to soldier on, alternating as the fleet flagship until the early 1950s, when they were finally decommissioned after nearly four decades in service." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese cruiser Kasuga and Nisshin

Hey Sturm, you've written in these articles that they were originally ordered by the Argentine Navy, but Conway's and Kasuga-class cruiser has them as being ordered by Italy. Is Conway's wrong, I presume? (The Warship 2014 article seems like a stronger source.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sent you some scans from the Argentine book to clarify things. The Kasuga-class article needs to be folded into the overall Garibaldi-class article, but I haven't gotten around to that since these ships are such a PITA to deal with. I still can't say for absolutely sure, but the combination of the more recent Warship article and the Argentine book seems pretty decisive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturm. Definitely think the two pages can be merged, as it's definitely only a subclass. Fascinatingly, I've also found a lone article in an old Proceedings that claims one was originally ordered by Spain. That's novel.

That said, in the same edition of Proceedings I've also found what I'm 99% sure was Scheina's source for his information, even though he chose not to put it in a footnote. [2] It says that Argentina ordered them and includes the same "contract premium" tidbit. In any case, it's worth noting that neither Proceedings article says that they were originally ordered by Italy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this pretty well settles any debate left. The Kasugas were "commenced" by Argentina, while others had been "commenced" for Italy. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a key article on the history of the class. Unfortunately, it differs in some respects from more modern sources. The difficulties reconciling them is one reason why I haven't done much with the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga

The article Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios

The article Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian monitor Admiral Greig

The article Russian monitor Admiral Greig you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian monitor Admiral Greig 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian monitor Admiral Lazarev

The article Russian monitor Admiral Lazarev you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian monitor Admiral Lazarev 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you please help with SS Choctaw

Would you mind having a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. GreatLakesShips retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing. Thank you in advance A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: - no, the licenses are not correct. The photos are all US works, so EU copyright law is completely irrelevant. For us to be able to use the images, we need evidence of publication before 1923. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ok, thank you I'll pass it on to the wrighter of the article @GreatLakesShips: thank you again A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (1899)

The article French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (1899) 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the May 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with 63 points from 6 articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Tegetthoff-class nearing competition

Strum, it appears that the Tegetthoff-class battleship article is getting close to completion. I've been working on it for quite a while now and I'm just waiting to touch it up with some additional sources, and maybe some sort of "Legacy" section to talk about the impact the ships had after the War.

That said, before I try to push for an A-class nomination or something of that sort, I'd like your help with the image situation. I simply don't know where to start. Everything is on the table of course, which means that I can delete pictures that I need to delete but I just don't know how to go about doing this. Mind giving me a hand?--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

Ok, I'll go through one and tell everything that applies to why or why not it's appropriately licensed. Be sure to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hyūga first, though, and I'll explain anything that you don't understand. Be advised that I'm getting ready to move in the next couple of weeks, so there may be delays in responding to you, so please be patient.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I can help with this too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a look through the images in the article, and it's probably easier at this point to list the photos that can stay:

• File:SMS Viribus Unitis2.jpg - has a pre-1923 publication
• File:Viribus Unitis class battleship main weapon.svg - this is usable, but will probably require the uploader to add what sources they used to make the illustration
• File:30,5 cm geschützturm.jpg - has a pre-1923 publication

For the videos that are credited to ORF (which was founded in 1955) we'd need to know when they were published (and if the footage was published prior to ORF's newsreels). All other images need a date of publication and evidence that they're PD in the US (usually this will require a pre-1923 publication date). Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Warship International

Hey Sturm, I forget if you have easy access to old editions Warship International or not - I'm trying to scrounge up information on old Italian screw corvettes, and I found a reference to one of them in the 1977 edition that might have some useful technical details (Conway's is next to useless on the pre-unification ships). If not, I can probably get it from OSU. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say that my collection isn't a complete as it used to be and I don't have that issue. Which is mostly like No. 3 of that year based on page counts from the two issues that I do have of that year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, OSU it is. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

SMS Szent István

So get this, the music video to Coldplay's song "All Your Friends" includes a brief clip of the Szent István sinking. If you go to YouTube and find the video, fast forward to 1:35 and you'll see it. Any idea how to (if at all?) incorporate that into the article as well as Tegetthoff-class battleship?--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

We generally discourage pop culture references in battleship articles. Otherwise the Yamato article would be full of refs to Space Battleship Yamato.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My initial thought was something like a “Legacy” section for the ship class article, as the Tegetthoff appeared in an Italian movie, the wrecks of Szent István and Viribus Unitis are both popular diving locations, and the Szent Istvan’s sinking is commonly used in various forms of media as it is only one of two battleships in history to ever be recorded sinking in action.—White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

The diving stuff is fine, see the Nagato article, but I'm really unsure about movie appearances, etc. What do you think, Parseboy?

I mean, I'm ok with it either way. I'm just trying to think of ways to make the article as comprehensive as possible before I try to take it to ACR and eventually FAC. Always appreciate input!--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

My thought is, if the reference is pretty notable, it should be included, but if it's not, it should be left out. A good example of this is Russian battleship Potemkin, which was the subject of a film that is routinely rated one of the best films ever made (and even there, the section becomes a magnet for crap like this). Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

Pritzker Literature Award

The 2018 award was announced today. Here are some links to news articles about it: Washington Post article [3], PR Newswire [4], and Chicago Sun Times [5]. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Input requested: Talk:List of battleships of Japan

Sturmvogel,

I'd like your input regarding what citation method to use for List of battleships of Japan. I went through hours of work redoing all the citations only to find out that I'm going against WP:CITE. Rather than attempt a fati accompli and just ignore the fact that I broke established precedent by changing citations without establishing consensus, I started a thread over there for folks to discuss what citation style the list will use. I have no problems reverting all of my edits if we conclude that the old style should remain in place. Since you're a regular contributor to these type of lists and I recall reading a post of yours regarding WP:CITE rules, I thought it would make sense to ping you about this so you can give any input you'd like.

Thanks, --White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

Sorry to take so long to respond, but I should be done moving in a few more days and will have more time for Wiki early next week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 10 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Page numbers from sources

We spoke a while ago about citing specific page numbers from sources. In some of the more complicated articles, there are two sections, one for all the pages from a single source used, and then a bibliography section listing all the sources. Its time I learned how to do this, so would be appreciative if you could point out the instructions on how to build these sections into articles. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 03:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. The MOS suggests one section for cites which need page numbers and another with full bibliographic info for all of the sources used. You must conform to the existing citation format if one is already present, see WP:CITE. See Police Regiment South for one example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that does indeed clear it up. I've also been told by my research contacts that there is a new SS book coming out next month, written by one of the RG242 SS historians at the U.S. National Archives. Will send you a link when its available if you'd like. -O.R.^Comms 15:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help. What's the title of the book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Its apparently a three book set written by one of the senior NARA historians. Book names not released yet, but release dates are apparently fall 2018, summer 2019, and then sometime after 2020 for the final set. Will let you know when I hear more. -O.R.^Comms 14:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing. I'm surprised that more information hasn't been released since the fall isn't far away.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Japanese battleship Nagato with quite a story: "The Nagato had a curious history during World War II. She was Nagumo's flagship at Pearl Harbor, but was generally retained at home for most of the war, waiting for the decisive fleet engagement by which the Japanese planned to destroy the advancing Americans. She did participate in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, but inflicted little damage on the American ships that she did encounter. She was the last Japanese battleship afloat at the end of the war and was used by the Americans as a target during the atomic bomb tests in 1946 at Bikini Atoll. The ship survived them relatively intact and is today a popular dive site."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Russian battleship Retvizan, "ordered from an American shipyard because Russian ones were already at full capacity building ships for Tsar Nicholas II's naval expansion program to defend his recently acquired territory in northern China. Damaged several times during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–045, she was sunk when the Imperial Japanese Army besieged Port Arthur. The ship was salvaged by the Imperial Japanese Navy and repaired for service with the name Hizen. She served in minor roles during World War I and was sunk as a target in 1924."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for German torpedo boat Albatros, "One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery."! Happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Japanese battleship Hyūga, "built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 1936B destroyer

The article Type 1936B destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 1936B destroyer 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 White Shadows -- White Shadows (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Bedford (1901)

The article HMS Bedford (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Bedford (1901) 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) 00:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests

A bit surprised to get TEN deletion requests on the old Reichsmarine T-boats. All pictures - surprise - were taken after 1923 and before the war. All were published too before the war and in Germany nobody claims a copyright. Nach dem deutschen Urheberrecht besteht bei diesen einfachen Aufnahmen ein derartiger Schutz nicht. I cannot unterstand, who has an advantage not to use these pictures. --erb. 00:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

They may be out of copyright in Germany, but since they were taken after 1923, they're still in copyright in the US and cannot be used in Commons. That's policy; which is a pity, since some of them are very nice. I'll probably be able to use some of them through fair-use claims, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Article question

Hey Sturm, do you happen to have access to the Warship International article "Phantom Fleet: The Confederacy's Unclaimed European Warships" that you used in HMS Wivern (1863)? I could probably use it for the Template:Sclass- article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't remember it being all that helpful, which is why I didn't actually use it in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll get it through the OSU library and see if it's any use. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

FA help

Hello Sturmvogel! It was nice to meet you at Leadership Bootcamp this year. My student workers are trying out FA nominations for Aldus Manutius (already nominated) and Scarface (1932 film). I just realized that Aldus Manutius doesn't have alt text for the images, so I'm adding it now. Do you have advice for getting these pages to FA status? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at each, although I may just do a formal review of Aldus Manutius at FAC since it's already been nominated. I did notice that neither article had a WP:peer review after passing their GA reviews. There's a pretty big gap between GA and FA, quality wise, and it's always good for inexperienced editors to request a peer review, being sure to mention that the next step is a FAC. That's important because it lets reviewers know that they need to be strict about the WP:MOS and about the prose quality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we had Aldus Manutius nominated for a peer review, but didn't hear anything for a few months (and removed the peer review nomination to try out an FA nom). Is it customary to ask another user to perform a peer review, or is the wait time usually pretty long? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The wait can be pretty long; it depends often depends on the topic being of interest to an editor who frequents peer review. Which sad to say, is not well-trafficked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Terrible (1895)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Terrible (1895) 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Terrible (1895)

The article HMS Terrible (1895) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Terrible (1895) 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Powerful (1895)

The article HMS Powerful (1895) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Powerful (1895) 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) 03:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Powerful-class cruiser

The article Powerful-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Powerful-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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HDMS Niels Juel (1918)

The article HDMS Niels Juel (1918) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HDMS Niels Juel (1918) 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) 00:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that

I'm sorry about messing up the order of your sources on German torpedo boat T4, apparently User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck displays that as an error. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry; it was pretty obvious that you'd sorted it by date, which is reasonable since I had to use that to distinguish between the two books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the August 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 189 points from 28 articles. Congratulations, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

GAR for Operation Hailstone

Operation Hailstone, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I also hope that you may help invite other Wikipedians interested, that more people will join the discussion. Many thanks! Regards, Sænmōsà^{I will find a way or make one.} 08:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Bravo and a barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your positively Herculean efforts to find images and sources for, and otherwise significantly improve, numerous Wikipedia articles regarding World War II-era German torpedo boats in an effort to prevent them from sinking into the ocean of obscure Internet content, you are hereby presented with this barnastar and a standing ovation. Bravo! 47thPennVols (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I've seen one of these before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

SS Police regiments

Hi. I have a question about the language that appears in an number of articles:

It was redesignated as an SS unit in early 1943, but it never became part of the Waffen-SS...

All of the police regiments were redesignated as SS police units on 24 February 1943, but this was strictly honorary.

My understanding is that SS and the Order Police were being amalgamated together as the war progressed, so it would not necessarily mean that "SS" = "Waffen-SS". Could you elaborate on that? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

SS and Waffen-SS mean the same thing to many, if not most, casual readers, I think. The RSHA maintained a sort of firewall between the two with the "ethnic" SS divisions being titled Waffen Divisions of the SS and SS Freiwillingen. I just wanted to emphasize the difference so that readers don't think that these units suddenly were better equipped and filled out with higher-quality manpower when they are redesignated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Does the language "strictly honorary" appear in the source, or is this your interpretation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Easiest way that I could think of to convey my meaning. Tell 'em once in the lede and again in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this does not answer my question. Does this language appear in the source? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty implicit in my response. Tessin & Kanapin just say that they were redesignated without mentioning any augmentation of manpower or equipment. What's your objection?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The concern is that the language but it never became part of the Waffen-SS... and but this was strictly honorary does not come from the source and appears to be a personal interpretation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you say that I am wrong? I think we both know that I'm not and that the Waffen-SS was separate from the SS-Police. Most of the sources that I've read never delve into the relationship between the two and just talk about Himmler formally consolidating his control of the Police by merging it into the SS. If you know of some source that does I'll happily add a cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Although, honestly, I don't think that it's a controversial fact that needs citing. More of a clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The concern is not about whether the opinion is controversial, but with it being WP:OR, judging by the response here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That they never became part of the Waffen-SS is not OR. If you want to quibble about "but this was strictly honorary" I believe that's implicit with the redesignation without change to organization or strength, but I'm willing to take that out if you'd like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Re: "...but it never became part of the Waffen-SS...", this implies that it could have or should have become part of the Waffen-SS; it's an odd construction. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the strictly honorary bit. I phrased it that way because I think that most casual readers do not understand the distinction between SS and the Waffen-SS. I think that it's important to make that distinction, but I'm happy to take suggestions for better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved "while retaining its existing organisation and strength" into the body of the article, such as here. It seems a better spot for this info. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Page mover granted

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

HMS Incomparable

It's a battlecruiser design and it has a Wikipedia page which has links to sources of drawings of the proposed design. What more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushio01 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite honestly it doesn't deserve an article as Fisher did no more than mention the qualities that he'd like to have in the next generation battlecruiser. It's a pie-in-the-sky concept and I'm gonna start the process for deleting the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do - it was about as likely to be built as Kaiser Bill's fast battleships of the 1890s and 1900s. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve the quality of the article Maureen Wroblewitz on Wikipedia:Did you know? articles. Thanks you. 113.160.130.156 (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

20 cm Luftminenwerfer M 16

I added a picture to this article. Is this the correct mortar?

The mortar in this category doesn't match your description because it's breech loaded and too tall for muzzle loading a shell that heavy.Snowdawg (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me check; I don't have Ortner anymore, sad to say, but it does match the picture used in the Landships website. I'll change the description to say that it's breech loaded if I confirm it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome back!

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, I present you with these Coordinator stars as a mark of the responsibilities you have volunteered to take on for the project for the next year. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be back.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the September 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 161 points from 27 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

German torpedo boat Albatros

Hi, I see you've improved this a lot - thanks! I just GAN'd it, and I thought you might be interested. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was ready for GAN; otherwise I'd have nom'ed it myself. And why are you nominating articles that you haven't worked on yourself? Do you honestly expect to be able to deal with questions about this boat's history, etc. if you don't have the sources on hand? I don't think that it's appropriate to nominate articles for GAN that you haven't worked on without consulting the primary editor first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've dived into the article history, I see that you created it, but haven't done much with it since. So some of my points above don't apply, but you still should have asked first. If you had access to the sources that I don't, I'd have been happy to co-nominate it with you as we could have worked together to add the info necessary to make it ready for a GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Something of a side note, the Hildebrand ref needs to be corrected. It'll be Vol. 1 if you want to copy it from SMS Albatross (1907). Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my primary issue with not nominating it. Thanks, I'll do that. And I'll add myself as co-nominator so this can go forward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That was the whole point of posting here: I created the article, you improved it using sources I don't have access to but you seem to. Of course, I should probably asked you before GANing it. Any pre-GAN improvement suggestions? Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The prose in the prewar sections needs improvement. I've already fixed some of the more egregious stuff, but you should look it over and fix what you can.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have access to The Gathering Storm: The Naval War in Northern Europe September 1939 – April 1940? The GA reviewer asked if the 19 deaths caused by Admiral Scheer's bombardment were civilian or military. If you don't, I'll ask at WT:MILHIST. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Responded on the GAN page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 11 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of SS Police Regiments

Would you kindly remove the SS Police Regiments such as 18th SS Mountain Police Regiment from the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force? I do not think they can legitimately be considered part of Russian military history. Kges1901 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The 18th, certainly as it never deployed in Russia, but there are many that did and should probably stay.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So you think that units that fought in Russia shouldn't be tagged with the Russian TF? I'm not so sure about that as the ones that fought in Yugoslavia are tagged by WP:Yugoslavia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the regiments that did not deploy to Russia. To answer your question, I do think that as I would tend to interpret the task force scope for Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history as limited to topics with stronger connections to Russia or the Soviet Union – "legitimately part of Russian military history" – than merely being sent to the territory in the course of war, and committing atrocities there – after all, these units were made up of ethnic Germans. But as the WP Yugoslavia scope states "all aspects" related to Yugoslav history it can be said that they are broader than that of the Russian TF. This is not something that I consider a major issue, but I would prefer the TF scopes not be interpreted too loosely, to avoid "overburdening" task forces with tangentially related topics. Kges1901 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have you looked at all of them? I only looked at 18 on up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked at all of them, and notified you because I didn't want to have to do all of the removals by myself. Kges1901 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly a case of "too many hands spoil the broth".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

More GAs

Would it be okay with you if I nominated Type 23 torpedo boat and member ships for GA? Maybe we could even finish a good topic. I know it could be considered drive-by, so I'm consulting you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are ready for it as their prewar activities need to be bulked up considerably and I'm dubious that simply translating that part of the German wiki articles is good enough to fix that problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I wanted to ask you about the two proposals I posted at WT:SHIPS#Related subject; there seems to be general approval for them, but its certainly not a reviewed/closed discussion with a consensus decided one way or the other. I would like to see these added to WP:SHIPMOS, if possible, before that discussion gets archived. You know your way around WP:SHIPS, do you have a suggestion on how best to get that done? Thanks - wolf 06:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lemme read through them again and see what I think needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Baku

The article Soviet destroyer Baku you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Baku 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) 03:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITESTYLE

See also that guideline regarding consistent reference style.

You just re-introduced inconsistency (as well as an invalid link to commons and an un-italicized ship name).

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you should have gone through the history to find the original cite style used and then made things consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I did make things consistent. But the only thing you noticed was that I changed several of them, which of course is the only way when they were inconsistent. I suggest you look harder before you revert people, on no basis whatsoever, and just making things worse.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Japanese battleship Hyūga, Japanese battleship Ise, and Lion-class battleship. MilHistBot (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Petropavlovsk-class battleship

Hey, just wanted to apologize in case I came off as pedantic for the Petropavlovsk-class battleship FAC. I realized it was a trivial objection in the grand scheme of things, and "grammar" is ultimately an arbitrary thing, after all. ceranthor 14:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I was a little irritated initially, but you responded with equanimity to my comments and that helped me to settle down. And I liked that you asked for comments from others like I'd asked for some from Dank. Mind you, I'm still not sure if I've that bit of grammar down yet, so you may well have opportunities to add them again. Next time, I promise that I won't just revert all of your changes out of hand as I've often had to do to editors who assume that their stylistic preferences are actually grammatical ones. Feel free to ping me if you need a review for one of your own articles; I'm not much of a grammarian, but I'm pretty good at other aspects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries! In the future I'll try to raise those sorts of trivial changes with writers/nominators. ceranthor 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Tbilisi

The article Soviet destroyer Tbilisi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Tbilisi 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) 00:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer Moskva

Hello

In Soviet destroyer Moskva there is photo of other ship - just as there is no photo of Moskva. But here is photo of ship. Can you consider changing this photo? PMG (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That photo doesn't have adequate licensing information. We don't know that it's PD in Russia or the US, both of which are required. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A favor

Hey Jason, I see you have a copy of Warship 1997-1998 - there's an article in it titled "The German Navy from Versailles to Hitler" that might be useful for me - could you scan it when you have the chance? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Sturmvogel 66:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

thank you A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Please review the proposed newsletter in my Sandbox1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, made one small edit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the October 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 98 points from 17 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Talk:Austro-Italian ironclad arms race/GA1

Sturmvogel 66, I noticed that you weren't pinged when the nominator made their latest reply to issues you had raised in your review. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry this has dragged on so long, but I'm waiting for him to respond to my 31 October comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies; I missed that one. I'll ping his page in case he missed it too. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• No worries; most the time taken for this review has been my responsibility.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit on Amiral Murgescu plus a few remarks

Greetings sir. I've taken note with quite a bit of surprise of your recent edit. You are obviously more versed into warships than I am, I've seen your work on the Regele Ferdinand class and I praise you for that, hoping that you'll eventually extend the same service to the other Romanian Navy ships, Murgescu included. Thus I am certain you had reasons to undo my edit. I would like to note, however, that the Kaibokan are the closest Axis warships to the Allied frigates and destroyer escorts, as well as being by far the most numerous of this type of warship fielded by the Axis. There are also many similarities between Murgescu and the Type D in particular. Thus, I do personally find it relevant to have a comparison between Murgescu and the Type D, as the latter was a representative of the main type of Axis escort ship. Prefectul (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't do comparisons with other ships of the same general type. Forex, none of the battleship articles compare them to other battleships.

I'd like to bring most of the wartime Romanian ships up to GA status, but the main problems are getting reliable sources that cover their pre- and postwar activities. If another ship of the same name is in the modern Romanian Navy then the history section on their website is generally good enough, but we'll have problems if not. Hopefully your Romanian-language sources might be able to help on that, although determining whether or not they're RS might be tough. I already know that Kindell and friends is self-published and thus not reliable, so it would be very helpful if you could purge all the Romanian ship article of those citations. If you want to keep the facts attributed to Kindell and friends, you'll need to find another source. If you can't find another source, you'll need to delete the facts as well, regardless of how important they might be. WP:V is our rule here for quality articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for German torpedo boat Albatros

On 10 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German torpedo boat Albatros, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite clear orders to fire only if fired upon, the German torpedo boat Albatros crippled the Norwegian ship Pol III after being rammed, thus firing the first shot of the Norwegian Campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German torpedo boat Albatros. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, German torpedo boat Albatros), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please sign

Can you please sign this petition requesting certain historic photos be released for Wikimedia Commons? (URAA+Russian retroactive copyright law+copyright internationalization+different wikis fairuse rules=Wikinightmare) Please do spread the word of the petition to other Wikipedians too. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NMS Regele Ferdinand

The article NMS Regele Ferdinand you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:NMS Regele Ferdinand 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer

The article Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NMS Regina Maria

The article NMS Regina Maria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:NMS Regina Maria 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Type 39s

Would it be okay with you if I nom'd other type 39s like T23? Again, I made a DYK on that one and even wrote a small part of it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You can nominate T23 and T24 if you'd like, but not any of the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 40 torpedo boat

The article Type 40 torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat 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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou

I've been following your progress with making the articles about the Romanian warships into "good article"s. Thankyou for this, it sure is an appreciated "birthday gift" from you come 1 December, the day of the centenary of the union with Transylvania. However, I'd like to express my personal hopes that you won't stop solely at the four destroyers as far as the Romanian Navy is concerned. Regards. Prefectul (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll have to see. I have good info on the submarines and I can probably put together something on the minelayers, but English-language coverage of their non-wartime activities is pretty nonexistent and I probably won't be able to get them past B class at best. And I'm frustrated that coverage of the activities of the two other Viful-class destroyers is negligible in English so I can't finish the class article for them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Of the surface ships, at least Amiral Murgescu should be made a GA. She's the top Romanian surface warship of WW2 aside the 3 destroyers: displacement of over 1000 tons (albeit at full load), purpose-built warship, and main guns of over 4 inches. The destroyers, the 3 subs and Murgescu are the cream of the Romanian WW2 Navy, you manage these and it's enough, I reckon. Prefectul (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for German torpedo boat T24

On 28 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German torpedo boat T24, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after being damaged twice by Allied ships, escorting a blockade runner, and hitting two mines, the German torpedo boat T24 was sunk by air-launched rockets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German torpedo boat T24. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, German torpedo boat T24), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for German torpedo boat T22

On 1 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German torpedo boat T22, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the German torpedo boat T22, along with two other torpedo boats, was blown up by naval mines while laying a minefield? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German torpedo boat T22. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, German torpedo boat T22), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for NMS Regele Ferdinand

On 2 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NMS Regele Ferdinand, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Soviet air attacks damaged the fuel system of the Romanian destroyer Regele Ferdinand in May 1944, an unsuccessful attempt was made to refuel the ship using a bucket brigade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NMS Regele Ferdinand. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NMS Regele Ferdinand), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that I really deserve this, but your series represents all the best that Wiki can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

For being more of a Wikipedian than I am ever likely to manage

		The Civility Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your near super-human demonstration of Voltairean principle, which by rights should alone have been enough to convince anyone of your good faith. I am quite sure that I could not have remained so civil; and also sure that you served as an example to more than just me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've skirted the edges more than a few times, but I like to think that I've learned better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I guess that I won't know about myself until I am put in the situation. That was an impressive degree of self control from you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody saw the dozen or so angry replies that I composed in my head!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Good on you for being so equable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert on German torpedo boat T23

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit on the article above, where I changed "a RAF" to "an RAF". "An" is used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter. See English articles#Distinction between a and an. For example, it is "an hour" (our), not "a hour". "RAF" is pronounced letter by letter - "arr ei eff", so "an" should be used instead of "a". - Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the November 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 94 points from 12 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Bretagne date issue

I was looking through the article, and it has the ship arriving in Halifax on 10 April 1940 and returning to Toulon escorting a convoy on 10 April - one of those must be a typo, but which one? Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, once we get that sorted out, I think we're ready to send it to A-class - I added a bit to the service history but it was already in pretty good shape. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd think I'd have caught all of those "meter"s, but it didn't occur to me to look for them when I switched the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I almost always forget one term or another when converting from one to the other, if I remember to worry about it in the first place. I only caught it this time because I spotted your comment in the article history. I did double-check the images in hopes of getting a first time pass from Nikki and noticed that we'd forgotten to added Barnaby as the artist for the Brassey's drawing. Might be a useful task some snowy day to go through Commons and add that info to all of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that had occurred to me too, but I haven't gotten around to it yet ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And felicitations to you as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for NMS Regina Maria

On 19 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NMS Regina Maria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Soviet Union seized the Romanian destroyer Regina Maria and commissioned it into their navy despite Romania having switched sides to join the Allies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NMS Regina Maria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NMS Regina Maria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 41 torpedo boat

The article Type 41 torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 41 torpedo boat 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936)

The article Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936) 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 CaptainEek -- CaptainEek (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A Shaker greeting

	A Shaker Christmas wish
	Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

Happy editing, into 2019 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And to you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for NMS Mărăști

On 31 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NMS Mărăști, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Romanian destroyers Mărăști and Mărășești both changed owners three times and were renamed four times during their careers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NMS Mărăști. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NMS Mărăști), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for NMS Mărășești

On 31 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NMS Mărășești, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Romanian destroyers Mărăști and Mărășești both changed owners three times and were renamed four times during their careers? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NMS Mărășești), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the Year

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Silver Wiki for sharing second place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sturm. Thanks for your efforts in 2018. All the best for 2019! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Greetings Sturm, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. I know you would see this message, even it's not 2019 overthere but here it would be that's why say it. Anyway I would say: "you Americans follow us the Europeans into the future". Cheers and have a great day and year. CPA-5 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

December 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the December 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with 127 points from 20 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Military History Writers' Contest Cup

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a total of 1,037 points from 755 articles throughout the year. Congratulations and thank you for your efforts! Kges1901 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, Sturm. Your effort and output has been pretty much constant all year. This is well deserved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894), HMS Vanguard (1909), Design A-150 battleship, Borodino-class battlecruiser, HSwMS Thordön (1865), Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios, Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga, Japanese battleship Hyūga, Powerful-class cruiser, HMS Powerful (1895), HMS Terrible (1895), Petropavlovsk-class battleship, and HMS Erin you are hereby award the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your work on Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894), HMS Vanguard (1909), Design A-150 battleship, Borodino-class battlecruiser, Petropavlovsk-class battleship, and HMS Erin you are hereby awarded The Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your work on Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894), HMS Vanguard (1909), Design A-150 battleship, Borodino-class battlecruiser, HSwMS Thordön (1865), Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios, Greek destroyer Vasilissa Olga, Japanese battleship Hyūga, Powerful-class cruiser, HMS Powerful (1895), HMS Terrible (1895), Petropavlovsk-class battleship, and HMS Erin you are hereby award the WikiProject Ships Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on Design A-150 battleship I hereby award you The Right Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Potemkin

Hi, the ship was launched on 13 September 1900 (old style), every Russian source says that. Not sure where you got October, most likely it's September 26 taken from some book already updated to new style. Ship was officially commissioned on May 20 1905 (again old style) which again makes it June 2 (new style). Ship was also not in service in 1903, it was undergoing sea trials, repairs in 1904 and for example main casements were not installed until late 1904. Please revert those changes you made. Thank you. Crook1 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Did you miss the note that said all date were in New Style? McLaughlin says November 1903, so that's what I'm going with. And what's a casement?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm saying, it was launched on September 26 1900 NEW STYLE not October. casement=casemate. Ship was not in service in 1903. It was parked in port, officially commissioned in May 1905 as part of Black Sea Fleet basically weeks before the mutiny.Crook1 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Even Russian Wikipedia got it right. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%91%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_(%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%86)

McLaughlin say 9 October New Style, so what's your source for 26 September NS and for the commissioning date? McLaughlin admits that the trials not finished until Spring 1905, but does not give a commissioning date, so I'll amend that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You can look it up here http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/01/022/index.html, it's in Russian though. Also list speed at 16.65 knots. Crook1 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. McLaughlin lists Melnikov's book on the ship in his bibliography and references it in his published errata. I was just wondering if you were using something that had come out more recently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019

I am not sure about this but the GA submissions from MaranoFan and Lee Vilenski, who are in the top three currently does not meet the scoring criteria. Both the users worked through the articles during 2018, before the competition even began. Please let me know if I have made a mistake. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me consult with my fellow judges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937)

The article Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937) 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, MilHistBot!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)

The article Soviet destroyer Smely (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Smely (1939) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 44 torpedo boat

The article Type 44 torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 44 torpedo boat 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seeteufel

The article Seeteufel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seeteufel 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Skory (1939)

The article Soviet destroyer Skory (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Skory (1939) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Bretagne review

Hey, I finally got around to the Bretagne ACR, and there are a couple of questions from Peacemaker that I figure you'll be able to answer better than I can, since I don't have Jordan & Caresse. When you get a minute, can you take a look? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I need an excuse to get off my rear and respond to the comments at my ACRs and FAC, anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell me about it - it took a poke from Ian to get me to work on the Schlesien FAC, and even longer with Bretagne - CPA's comments had been there over a month before I got to them today. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

And what makes it even funnier is that we were talking about trying to push hard at ACR and FAC to get to 50% in 2 years in Columbus only last October!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, and here I am, working on Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser to get it FAC-ready, and the BC topic already is at 50%! Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It's all good, my friend, getting that to FA would offset a battleship article being stuck at GA forever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point - it's going to be a stretch to get enough of the battleships up to FA to make 50% - so many of the pre-dreadnoughts will be stuck at GA (though I bet that several of the Dardanelles ships could make it). The trouble I'm finding myself having is the FAC bottleneck - I've got several A-class articles twiddling their thumbs, and not many in the pipeline for ACR. I could probably do the Littorios if I ever got off my ass with Bagnasco & De Toro, but we'll see if and when I ever get around to doing that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Patience, young padawan. We figured on no more than 3 articles a month through FAC at best. One from each of us and then one joint article. Right now we each have our own articles going through it now, and Bretagne will be our joint article once it clears ACR. And I'll nom Normandie class for ACR shortly, so that can be our next joint FAC. Once we get these through, we can nominate the rest of the individual ship articles with all the bugs worked out. You might want to get a copy of Jordan & Caresse so you can update all of my solo articles like I'm doing for your Bretagne class and will do for the various pre-dreadnoughts. Pending that you can update my solo Italian BB articles if you'd like. And don't forget all of the Austro-Hungarian ships. I've got more than enough solo Japanese and British BB and BC articles to keep me busy for quite a long time. I do think that the only way that we can get more reviews to get articles through faster is to do more reviews and hope that people will reciprocate. And, probably the harder thing for us both right now, is to be more responsive to the reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Damnit, you had to suggest getting a copy of Jordan and Caresse, and there happened to be a used copy on Amazon for half off ;) You're probably right about doing more reviews - maybe I'll try to knock out an ACR/FAC or two today. I should hopefully be a bit better at getting to the reviews quickly, now that I'm done with the British pre-dreadnoughts - I was pushing to get them at least written by year end, which I didn't quite do, but it was close enough. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

They call Satan the tempter!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of joint projects, I've finished a rewrite of HMS Resolution (09) - you wrote the technical section on that one, so that would certainly fit the bill - you'll probably want to look it over for anything you can add before it ends up at ACR. I think you've done the same for all of the Revenges, so I might write up the service histories for the other two to give us more joint articles for the pipeline. We ought to get to Royal Oak at some point too, but since it's already an FA, there isn't a ton of motivation on my part ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, Ramillies is mostly a mountain of garbage from 2005 - how has that existed in such a state for so long? This is going to need to be redone in a sandbox and pasted over... Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy that you decided to tackle the R's. They're often big stinking piles of... mess. But I think that that's true of a lot of the remaining OMT articles, which is why they haven't been reworked yet. I'll need to add all the material about which squadrons they were assigned to from the various Navy Lists, and if their commanders are notable, I'll add in dates of assignment as best I can figure them. But I'll do that after the GANs as it's tedious as hell. Fortunately, none of them were in the fleet during the war for very long. And I've a book of memoirs of service in Ramillies from surviving crewmen that I'll have to go through as well, but it may not actually have anything worthwhile. Just have to see.

Yeah, Royal Oak is an even bigger pile of... I took a few pokes at it a while ago when I was reworking all the descriptions and just got frustrated because it needed so much extra work with multiple cite styles, updating page numbers from Burt and such crappy language. Honestly, we ought to nominate it for a FAR at some point when we're both prepared to devote some time to fixing it back up. At least that way we can claim some actual credit for the work instead of just relying on its existing star. That would at least help my motivation a little.

I'll take a more thorough gander at Resolution in a bit, but a quick scan showed me that you need to identify which Burt books are 2012a and b in the bibliography.

The Normandie-class article has more problems with the development history regarding contradictions between sources than I'd remembered. Gonna take a bit more work comparing the three of them to see how exactly they differ, though I suspect Preston will be the odd man out.

What are your thoughts on how people have been tightening down on further reading sections as per the MOS? I never paid them much attention before, figuring that they were good if they were relevant to the subject. I suppose that we can try to work a fact or two from Dumas, etc., that matches info from Jordan & Caresse into the French BB articles, but that almost seems to be collecting sources strictly for the purpose of bulking up the list of references used. Not really worried about ensuring that Conway's is always in the refs, but readers should be aware of more specialized books like Dumas, especially the French-language material because I only skimmed that stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell me about it - it's much less fun to spend a couple of days each hacking these monstrosities apart than it is to blow through easy ones like the British pre-dreadnoughts, which mostly just needed their technical sections rewritten and then material from Corbett added in. I started with Resolution since that had the least amount of trash to cut away, but Ramillies and Revenge are a bit of a mess. But, I've learned from the experience with Dunkerque a few years back, and just do a slash and burn in a sandbox rather than try to go through line by line.

Ah, that's a good point on the Burts

It's always nice to have to sort through the source inconsistencies for ships that were never built, eh?

Me neither - for a while, I was just taking the references in the article and kicking everything I wasn't using into the Further reading section without much of a thought. I suppose it couldn't hurt to add a citation or two to Dumas, even if it's just a couple of double-cites in the technical section. I doubt that would be a problem. And I'd agree on the Conway's - if they aren't being used, they probably don't need to be included. Same with Jane's and the like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the bulk compilation books like Conways or Janes can be safely dumped because they usually aren't very in depth because they've got so much to cover. I'd be inclined to make an effort for something like Mussolini's Navy or Gröner because they're almost bound to have more useful detail that a reader might find of interest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, and something like Mussolini's Navy is likely to have additional context of the various operations that wouldn't really be appropriate for the ship article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)

The article Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Statny (1939)

The article Soviet destroyer Statny (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Statny (1939) 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Stroyny

The article Soviet destroyer Stroyny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Stroyny 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Svirepy

The article Soviet destroyer Svirepy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Svirepy 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Slavny (1939)

The article Soviet destroyer Slavny (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Slavny (1939) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Auberoche

Hi Sturmvogel. I dislike coming begging, but you were kind enough to do the source review for Battle of Auberoche at ACR, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Auberoche. It is currently at FAC with five supports but no source nor image review. If you could see your way clear to doing a source review I would be most grateful. Plus, obviously, owe you a QPQ. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Surovy (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Surovy (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Surovy (1940) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik

Just a heads up, I found a depiction of the boat at File:Nezamozhnik1926-1949c.jpg. I'm not sure it has the right license, but I figured you might be interested, since the current article doesn't have a pic of the destroyer itself. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but that book is less than 20 years old, IIRC, and we have no information about the photographer or any prior publication information which makes it unusable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for French battleship Courbet (1911), Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943), and Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Shaumyan

The article Soviet destroyer Shaumyan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Shaumyan 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review re History of Maputo

Hello, thank you for starting the review. I just saw your message and will begin addressing your critiques now. Jgefd (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Great--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, so I just went through your list and I think I fixed all the typos/grammar/wording issues you pointed out. I added context re the Dutch merchant working for Austria. I moved the link to the timeline of Maputo to the start of the body. Regarding the broken links, there were two that were listed as "dead" on the external link checker - I removed one as it was redundant anyway, but the other link worked fine when I clicked it so I left that one there. I understand that some of the links, like the NYTimes archive articles etc are protected by a paywall but I hope those are still good to stay. Lmk if there is anything else I can do, thanks. Jgefd (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll get started on the next round later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please be sure mark your responses on the nomination page from now on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)/GA2

Re: this comment, I apologise for having closed the discussion before you had a chance to comment further. But since you did not express an opinion on whether to keep or to delist, and as no other editors pinged responded, I thought it was time to close the GAR. I'm happy to continue the discussion either on your Talk page, on mine, or on the article's Talk -- whichever you prefer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, I'd be sure not to close such things so quickly; there's really no need to rush. Not that it would have mattered anyway. I hate the current system where any source can be challenged for any reason whatsoever and then it has to be defended. And in the hyperspecialized area in which we're working, there are only very rarely resources with which to do that as they're not reviewed in peer-reviewed journals and maybe, just maybe, there might be a forum post commenting on it, which will be deemed of no importance anyway. The other thing that gets me is that nothing cited to Bracke was controversial or worth being challenged, IMO, so why does it matter? The book may very well be biased, neither one of us have read it (so who knows?), but it's the only source available for the subject's early life and career which is necessary to get a complete view of a man's life. And it's perfectly possible to extract factual material from biased sources, most historians do that as a matter of course. IMO biased sources are not necessarily questionable ones, but they are certainly judged that way here. There needs to be some sort of intersection between WP:RS and WP:BIASED.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There's already intersection between RS and BIASED, in that biased sources can be RS or not. In the Waldman case, it was the latter. Scouring such bad sources for information is original research. We are not historians; I disagree that most historians do that as a matter of course would apply to us as Wikipedians. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Even in my ship articles I have to evaluate my sources if they disagree over some fact. Forex, I have sources giving two different names for the same French submarine. Most of my English-language sources use La Sybille, but at least one English-language source and all of my French-language sources give Sibylle. Am I then to presume that chosing one or the other is original research as per your example above? I think not, I'm perfectly capable, even as a mere editor, to assess the quality of various sources and chose one or the other based on whichever one I believe to be correct. Now, if I believe that both sources are of nearly equal quality, I'll add a note covering the disagreement, but I will chose one or the other for the main body of the article without a qualm. And if I were to venture into biography, I'd feel similarly comfortable in extracting facts such as the date that Kurt Meyer joined the Nazi Party from biased and non-RS sources like his autobiography. But, according to you, editors lack the judgement to do such a thing because that's original research. How so? I truly do not understand why you believe this. Is it that every single fact in a non-RS source is tainted in some manner unless confirmed by a reliable source?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is the type of material we’d use Meyer’s memoirs for, his article would be a stub. Bracke, Berger, Kurowski, and similar sources are noted not only for what they include, but also for what they obfuscate, omit, or choose to emphasise. That’s, for example, how we end up with our article on Werner Mölders extolling him for having “demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly”. While another source states that it’s not known whether Mölders passed on the Commissar Order. That’s due to Luftwaffe having thoroughly torched its records at the end of the war. And I hate the current system where any source can be challenged for any reason whatsoever and then it has to be defended sounds odd. I don’t have any issue defending sources that I use. If you have the courage of your convictions, defend away; that’s what RSN is for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd never base a complete article on Meyer's autobiography or similar sources for precisely the reasons that you mention, but that doesn't mean that it can't be used for simple factual material, IMO. Even biased or non-RS sources should be usable for non-controversial material like early education or family life. But you felt that material worthy of challenge for some reason that escapes me and I think that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And that's what I meant by the intersection of BIASED and RS.

My frustration with RSN is that hyperspecialized books like Bracke cannot be defended because they lack journal reviews and the like, so there's nothing that satisfies the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd never base a complete article on Meyer's autobiography or similar sources... -- but Bracke is somehow okay to single-source a GA article from? In re "hyper-specialised sources", then make a proposal at WP:RS, start an RfC, and so on. Complaining about the current guideline being somehow unfair will not bring about the change that you want. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Bracke was hardly the single source for that article and you well know it. His wartime career was pretty well covered by other sources. Yeah, I'm probably gonna have to do an RFC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I honestly do not know that. Bracke is being used for 38 citations, including for Waldman's WW2 career. The other sources are not much better either: Weal was discussed during Hartmann's GAR, while Obermeier is why in part why Mölders was FA-demoted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Weal? He's not an academic historian, but that's not relevant since he's published by Osprey which is a high-quality publisher. Many of those cites to Bracke would have disappeared once all the extraneous and irrelevant crap had been trimmed from the early sections if those had been properly edited down, though I will confess that I didn't look at the article in detail. I don't have the Mölders or Hartman articles watchlisted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timișoara Fortress/GA1

Hello, following your message here, because CodrinB is busy, I've updated the copyright tags. Thank you for review. --Turbojet (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll start reviewing the text. Are you going to be handling the remainder of the nomination as well?

Yes. The GA nomination page is in my watchlist. --Turbojet (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My first GA

Hello, I have spent most my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism but am starting to get into editing articles. I have taken on the task of getting Anti-torpedo bulge up to GA status but am not really sure where to start. Do you have any suggestions as to what I should do first? A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. Brown is a good start for the basics, though I'd suggest diving into the books by Burt, Friedman and McLaughlin for info on British, American and Russian battleships which cover how those navies evolved their versions of the bulge. Generally only WWI-era ships and later were built with bulges or had them added later. Pay particular attention to the bulges used in the Revenge-class battleships and HMS Hood as the RN experimented with different fillings for the bulges in these ships as well as their shapes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you for the advice A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. And think about continuing on to torpedo belt one you're done with it as it's so closely related.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I definitely will A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jauréguiberry and refs

Hey, I'm planning on starting reworking the article tomorrow, and I was wondering if you'd object to me switching everything over to sfn templates - I've started using these and I've found them to be less fiddly with repeated citations (I hate having to keep track of named refs) and they make it easy to see refs that aren't used in an article. If not, no biggie, but I figured I'd check. Parsecboy (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm done hacking away at the article if you want to take a look over it before we put it in the ACR queue. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at it later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the January 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 230 points from 31 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, man.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Sovereign-class battleship

The article Royal Sovereign-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Sovereign-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 Ykraps -- Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day Sturm. I hope you have/had a great Valentine's Day with your loved one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting day, but nobody to share it with. C'est la vie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe one day you will share it with someone, maybe next year, maybe in two years, maybe in five years who knows, Love can be everywhere and strike anytime. But I had a great day and it's indeed an interesting day. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• With a little luck, hopefully that'll change. Glad you had a good day yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS P222

On 20 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS P222, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British submarine HMS P222 was ordered to escort an Allied convoy to Malta on the surface, with the intent that it would be spotted by enemy aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS P222. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS P222), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review of History of Maputo

Hi, you may not have noticed because my response was a few days late, but I recently responded to your most recent critiques of History of Maputo. Best, Jgefd (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, I'd almost given up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Romanian 37 mm guns

Greetings. Regarding the 37 mm guns of the four Romanian destroyers, does the source specifically identify them as the SK C/30 model? I for one, imagine that they would simply say something along the lines of "37 mm Rheinmetall" or "German 37 mm" or "37 mm flak" and you went with the C/30 because it's the naval version. Which would be a fair presumption, but from my findings I have reasons to doubt that. Given that these guns were not part of the original armament, they weren't imported along with the ships, they were separately added afterwards, and thus they should appear on the Romanian list of imported artillery from the Reich. But they don't. Furthermore, Romania had little reason to import 37 mm German guns, since it could make them. A local factory acquired the licence for 360 pieces in 1938. This would also explain why they were only fitted in 1939, Romania would have had to produce them first. Thus, the 37 mm guns may well be in fact 3.7 cm Flak 36/37. Simply put, I found no records in my sources - both Romanian and Mark Axworthy's Third Axis, Fourth Ally - that Romania used any 37 mm AA guns other than the ones it produced under licence. Still, all of this assuming that the source you used doesn't specifically mention the gun as C/30, but if it does then excuse me for bothering. Prefectul (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You may well be right; I'll have to check my sources again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou, please let me know of what you find. Prefectul (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: I managed to find a useful snippet on Google Books. Regarding the modifications to the Marasti destroyers, Whitley's book mentions the 37 mm guns simply as "Rheinmetall". And I'd imagine this is also the case for Regele Ferdinand. I am aware that the SK C/30 was also designed by Rheinmetall, but so were the Flak 36/37 which Romania was producing by the hundreds. If these were SK guns, they'd be used in much lesser numbers due to their status as naval guns, so there would be a clear specification to distinguish them from the much more numerous type that Romania made under licence. But as we can see, this is not the case. [1] Prefectul (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been unable to confirm that they were indeed SK C/30s and have unlinked the reference. Calling them as such was unjustified and I really shouldn't have done it. You may well be correct that they were Flak 36s, but you can't actually say so without some proof, which you don't have, so I've reverted your recent changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

But I did source my edit to page 30 in Axworthy's book. In that page, as well as the one prior, Axworthy provides a comprehensive list of modernizations to the Romanian equipment, providing precise numbers of models which were acquired. For instance, he does mention that Romania bought 13.2 mm Hotchkiss heavy machine guns, 200 of them, and some of these wound up on Romanian warships as we both know. He also mentions 345 20 mm guns, including the 2 cm Flak Flakvierling (identified as Gustloff guns) (300) and Oerlikon (45). But as far as 37 mm AA guns go, he does only mention the 360 that Romania made under licence. He doesn't mention that Romania outright imported any (like he does on the previous page with French mortars and AT guns, which Romania both imported and made under licence), nor does he mention any other 37 mm AA guns for that matter, like it was the case with the two types of 20 mm guns. The only other 37 mm guns he mentions in that detailed modernization list is the Bofors AT gun, which is obviously out of our scope here. And yes, I understand that these were the modernizations up until Stalingrad, so for the first part of the war. But given that the 37 mm guns were fitted on both destroyer classes in 1939, I do believe there is no qualm in going with this source, which admittedly refers to the early part of the war. In conclusion, we know that the 37 mm guns are Romanian-made Rheinmetall, because no imported Rheinmetalls are mentioned (as is the case with French pieces, in the same list) nor any other type of gun of the same role and caliber (as was the case with the Oerlikon and Gusloff, both AA and both of 20 mm). May you please put back my edit now? Prefectul (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That "know" is the key point. That "know" is original research. Axworthy might have missed a mere eight guns that were imported, or maybe they were gifts from the Kriegsmarine and didn't show up in the records or maybe there's some other reason why he didn't list them. For the Regele Ferdinands, I could accept a parenthetical note saying that they were probably Flak 36s, citing Romanian production of them and that no SK C/30s are found in Axworthy's import list. But for the Mărăști even that wouldn't fly because the official webpage for the ships says that the 1939 weapons were SKCs, which was the nomenclature for the German-built guns, not the Romanian built ones; maybe the weapons from the Regele Ferdinands were transferred to the Mărăștis for some strange reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well then, I really don't know either. And typing "Romanian SK C/30" on Google Books doesn't help either. It's quite the conundrum. But you're the one with more and better sources. I hope you'll eventually find the time and way to solve this. Best wishes, I rest my case. Prefectul (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm just saying that you can't prove it. I honestly doubt that I'll ever be able to prove it one way or another, but maybe the archives of the Romanian Navy have the answer, if they survived the Communists reasonably intact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Now I know that I said I rest my case, but this just occurred to me. 1939 was too early during the German-Romanian relationship for such gifts as war weapons to be made. In 1939, Romania still had an Allied outlook, and did so until France fell. Prefectul (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I was just throwing possibilities out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Axworthy

Hello. I saw that you used Axworthy in the Marasti articles. Do you happen to actually have access to the whole book? Prefectul (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, is there something that you'd like for me to look up for you? Email me with the details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

February 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the February 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 106 points from 14 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Courbet (1911) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the French battleship Courbet (1911) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 16, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, Jim.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about another battleship, with "a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944."! Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Simoom (P225)

On 13 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Simoom (P225), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that all 15 torpedoes fired by HMS Simoom (pictured) during her career missed their targets, but 3 hit and sank a destroyer instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Simoom (P225). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Simoom (P225)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Stonehenge (P232)

On 14 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Stonehenge (P232), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Stonehenge disappeared with all hands in the Indian Ocean in 1944 but her exact location is still unknown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Stonehenge (P232). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Stonehenge (P232)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Bulwark (1899)

The article HMS Bulwark (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Bulwark (1899) 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Albatross

I'm sure you noticed, the FAC for Albatross has been closed because it failed to gather support fast enough. So, how do things go from there? Do people usually re-nominate, and hope more people will participate? I'm a bit disappointed, because I feel the article was up to the FA standards.

Also, would you mind E-mailing me the entry for HMS Sea Dog in Akermann's Encyclopedia of British Submarines 1901-1955, page 347? I'm planning on a new wave of GAs for the S-class boats, and google preview doesn't show page 347. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, remind me in a couple of days if I get distracted. If you could I'd appreciate it if you could draw this next batch of articles from the remaining boats of the 1940 programme as I've updated all of them already. That would give me time to deal with the later boats at my leisure while you focus on them.

I was a little surprised that it was closed before Parsec had a chance to evaluate my changes, but I hadn't noticed his comments for 3 or 4 weeks after they were made, so I can sort of understand closing it. The normal procedure is to wait two weeks after it was archived, which has passed, and resubmit incorporating fixes to all of the comments. We've done both, the only problem is that I'm really only allowed a single co-nom at a time unless the other one is pretty far along in the process. Bretagne, my co-nom with Parsec only has an image review and one review, with another promised, so we're gonna have to wait until it's more "mature" before we can re-nominate Albatros. Probably only a couple of weeks, I hope.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not on nearly as much as I used to, but please ping me when it's back up at FAC. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy to, but you could help expedite things in general by giving Bretagne a gander as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done! A pleasure to read. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think Bretagne has enough support now to restart Albatross? L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I renominated it yesterday.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Stratagem

On 17 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Stratagem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British submarine HMS Stratagem sank only one ship in its 13-month-long career—only three days before it was itself sunk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Stratagem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Stratagem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A question for you

Hey, I'm running up against a brick wall - I'm writing up French battleship Vérité, and Jordan & Caresse state that she left the Dardanelles in Dec. 1914 but the jerks don't say where she went - the next time she appears (unless I'm missing something) is in Salonika in 1916. I checked Corbett and he doesn't have much to add either. I'd assume she went back to the Armee Navale for the duration of 1915, but obviously I don't know for sure. Do you have anything in your library that might shed any light? Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There a mention of her as the flagship of VA Moreau in late 1915 on p. 246. If you can figure out who that is and what he's commanding, that might be helpful. Looking through the bibliography for Jordan & Caresse, I see "Les cuirassés de 15 000 tonnes" by Prévoteau which is probably your best bet, barring the difficulties in acquiring it as OCLC doesn't show a copy in the entire Anglosphere. Amazon.fr?

I checked the Adriatic articles in Warship 2015-16 and got nothing. The class article in the former is just a technical history. Howzabout the fr.wiki article, if there is one? Have you tried Halpern's various books, Battle of Otranto, Naval War in the Mediterranean and The Royal Navy in the Mediterranean, 1915-1918? My only other suggestion would be the relevant volumes of the Naval Staff Monographs, although I'm dubious that you'll find anything therein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't have page 246 scanned for use in the office - according to Corbett, Moreau was the commander of 3rd Squadron at the time (though Corbett's index says his flagship was Jeanne d'Arc, which complicates things - though since his focus is the RN, I'd take J&C's word over his), which was operating on the Syrian coast. That'll probably be enough to get a decent paragraph for at least some of her 1915 activities. Prevoteaux is probably the way to go, but it'll be tricky to get a copy. Based on a couple of French websites, the ISBN appears to be 9782914017275, but if you look it up on Amazon, you get this, which has the correct title but the wrong picture. And Worldcat has the 23500t book under that ISBN.

The fr.wiki article isn't a whole lot of use ;)

Oh hey, I don't know if you've seen it yet, but in case its of use to you, the 1923 volume of Corbett is viewable in google books now - I imagine because US PD has advanced to anything pre-1924? Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I bought a complete set of Corbett/Newbolt about 10 years ago as I knew that we'd be diving deep into the RN. I checked the publisher's website and it's out of print; I'd certainly be unwilling to risk $200+ with that sort of confusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that was probably a wise choice. I have an almost complete set of DANFS (that I got for free, actually), which was handy when the site went down for a while a few years back.

The plot thickens - I found Jordan's article in Warship 2018 on Jeanne d'Arc and he confirms that she was Moreau's flagship (and his predecessors Fournet and Gauchet). He makes no mention of Vérité being part of the unit. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Halpern's Naval War in the Mediterranean has Vérité as part of an Allied squadron commanded by Vice-Admiral Le Bris that arrived at Milo harbour (which may be Milos) on 25 November 1915, which appears related to putting pressure on the Greeks to ensure that they would allow Allied troops to retreat from Serbia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This looks like our man Moreau [6]. Couhat has him commanding Verite early 1916 as flagship of the third squadron, in 1914 commander is listed as le Bris. Various other mentions but nothing which says where Verite was in 1915 Lyndaship (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, guys. Good stuff. Prévoteau also recently published "La marine française dans la Grande guerre : les combattants oubliés" in 2 volumes that might have something on whatever Vérité was up to in 1915. As is all too common, no library in the Anglosphere has a copy, but it's still in print and not too dear at 30 Euros per volume from the publisher: [7].--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T25

The article German torpedo boat T25 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T25 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) 07:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the March 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 98 points from 16 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T26

The article German torpedo boat T26 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T26 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) 03:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kiev-class destroyer

The article Kiev-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kiev-class destroyer 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 Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T27

The article German torpedo boat T27 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T27 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I request advice

Recently I've had a tiny bit of a dispute with a fellow editor, over the Mareșal-Hetzer relationship. I added in the heading of Hetzer's article what Axworthy says at page 229: that a German lieutenant-colonel by the name of Ventz, a Waffenamt delegate to Romania, admitted in May 1944 that the Hetzer was indeed designed along the lines of the Mareșal. I have the tank expert Steven Zaloga to back this up too, in page 31 of his Tanks of Hitler's Eastern Allies, and I can get up to two more books on Google Books to confirm it if necessary. At the same time, this fellow editor removed my sourced addition to the heading (admittedly sourced only to Axworthy, not also Zaloga), stating that certain authors which he deems to be "Axis tank experts" make no such claim. I proceeded to ask him two more questions. Given that Steven Zaloga appears to be a tank expert overall, isn't he implicitly an Axis tank expert as well? This would answer one of the points he's raising. And also, if these authors he quotes are "Axis tank experts" (to quote his own words), do they also address the tanks of Hungary and Romania, which were also part of the Axis? After 2 days, I have received no answer. There's also the factor of "pre-1995", as I like to call it. Before Axworthy established Romania's full role in WW2 within Western scholarly work, nobody even knew about the Mareșal, its great similarity to the Hetzer and it preceding the Hetzer by months. So there should also be the question of these authors using updated information. Finally, because the authors he calls "Axis tank experts" do not support the claim, he argues that this should be considered "disputed". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't something "disputed" when there is something to counter it? And with 4 sources available right away, 2 of which reliable, 1 by a reputable expert in WW2 tanks overall, is this really disputed? Thankyou for taking the time to read this. I ask because I'm not sure how to proceed. I would re-add my sentence to the Hetzer heading, this time sourced to Zaloga, but I don't want to risk an edit conflict. Yet at the same time, I don't think this whole situation is right. Prefectul (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to catch up with this. I'd repost the information with links to Zaloga and Axworthy. You may need to add a note saying that other historians don't agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Lika

The article SMS Lika you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Lika 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Balaton

The article SMS Balaton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Balaton 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Triglav

The article SMS Triglav you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Triglav 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type 1936 destroyers

The article Type 1936 destroyers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type 1936 destroyers 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, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South Dakota-class battleship (1920)

The article South Dakota-class battleship (1920) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1920) 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Splendid (P228)

On 21 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Splendid (P228), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Splendid attacked a heavy German merchant ship, but instead sank an Italian destroyer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Splendid (P228). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Splendid (P228)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for French battleship Bretagne, French battleship Jean Bart (1911), and French battleship Jauréguiberry Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

NMS Amiral Murgescu

I would be grateful if you could find time to get around and make NMS Amiral Murgescu a good article as well. Aside from the 4 destroyers - with which you've already dealt with - she is the sole "big" warship of the Romanian Navy in WW2. Prefectul (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have enough sources to do her justice, but I'll take a look. If I get distracted and don't say anything here about her here, remind me in a couple of weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. As you can see it's been exactly a couple of weeks today, and per your suggestion I dropped by to remind you about this ship. Prefectul (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of work that needs to be done to bring her up to GA quality. I don't have time for that now, but remind me after the first of the month and I ought to be able to get it done. Still a little dubious whether I have enough sources, but we'll have to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to help

I reckon that for good article status it's best to have access to whole books, as off snippets or pages from Google Books may be out of context or outright incomplete. The only full book useful that I have, and even that - courtesy to you (again, thankyou very much), is Axworthy's. As you have it too, you've probably went through her available info yourself. If nothing else, then may what I'll write below at least help you edit easier, when using info from this book:

• page 328: Murgescu is mentioned for the first time, stated to be among the first major Romanian-built warships
• page 329: Murgescu stated to have entered service on 15 May 1941. Between 16 and 19 June 1941, she laid Romanian-built Vickers mines in four barrages, in a defensive arc off Constanta
• page 333: Murgescu is shown to be the sole Romanian minelayer with sonar, which she used to select the exact site of the minefield. Between 5 and 16 October 1941, she laid German UMC mines along the Bulgarian coast.
• page 338: Murgescu mines between Sulina and Sfantu Gheorghe in early April 1942. On 15 May, she extends the barrage to the Northern mouth of the Danube Delta. On 19-20 may, she further extends the barrage up to Bugaz. On 24-27 June, she joins a large force that seals the route from Odessa to Tendra. On 5-6 November, she reinforced the mouth of Sulina.
• page 339: Murgescu helps laying 4 mine barrages between Constanta and Odessa in April 1943
• page 340: Murgescu helps laying 3 mine barrages off Sevastopol and the Western Crimean coast between September and November 1943.
• page 342: Between 28 March and 10 April 1944, Murgescu takes part in the evacuation of Odessa. The table on the page also shows her to have a nominal capacity of 200, but to have carried as much as 1,000 people.
• page 343: Between 8 and 13 May, Murgescu sailed once during the evacuation of Crimea.
• page 344: Murgescu is part of the last Romanian convoy to return from the Crimea. On the night of 25/26 May, she helped lay the last Romanian mine barrage of the war.
• page 345: Murgescu escorts a Soviet vessel on 2 September, but she gets framed for treason when the latter got sunk and on 5 September, the entire fleet is confiscated. She is also mentioned as one of the last 8 fully seaworthy Romanian warships as of 5 September 1944.
• page 351: Murgescu's specifications.

It is worth noting that in all of her mining missions she was not alone. But - as she was reported to have been the sole Romanian minelayer with sonar - it was her presence that was decisive. I hope I could help. Prefectul (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 Milhist contest

		The WikiChevrons
		For placing first in the April 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with 110 points from 18 articles, I hereby award you these WikiChevrons on behalf of the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Damn you are in a killing spree. Even after you earned WikiChevrons. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Going for 12 in a row ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Revenge-class battleship

Hey, I've gotten around to doing the article and it's in decent shape - it still needs to have the armor section expanded and a section on modifications added. I figured I might leave that to you, if you're interested, since you have Raven & Roberts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, sure. You've done all the ops stuff?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and a good bit of the technical stuff as well, but you'll want to go over that and compare with R&R of course. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That, mon ami, sounds like a plan. Be a nice break from Hornet, too, my little bête noir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly why I started on the article - needed a break from the DANFS rewriting before I tackle Wee Vee. Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

		The GA barnstar
		For taking the time and effort to review the article 149th Armor Regiment, I hereby present to you this barnstar. The article would not have improved in its quality without you. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, man. You did the original work of expanding it, which had to be pretty considerable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:HMS_Acasta_(H09)

I've added a discussion point about one of the references used for HMS_Acasta_(H09) article on the Talk page which you might want to consider. Aeonx (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Replied there--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jordan & Moulin

Hey, I noticed on the Forces de haute mer article that you had the ref screwed up slightly - I fixed it there, but you'll want to check anywhere else you've used it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I just had the Toulon article and the destroyer book in the refs. You added the BB book; did you borrow it from one of my articles?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, apparently I copied from Dunkerque and then got mixed up as to which one I was looking at on the Forces de haute mer page! Guess I'm the one who needs to fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The truth will set you free! BTW, that was a good idea to add the composition to the article. Never even crossed my mind as I was all focused yesterday on finishing all eight of the Le Hardi-class DD articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

La-7

You don’t know the subject! Read sources before doing smth. La-9 was a post-WWII variant of La-7 but with all-metal construction and improved wing.

Insulting me will get you nowhere. I've cited my sources in the article, where are yours?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Read this to know the subject better (in Russian) - https://books.google.com/books?id=Klk6DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false All original plant drawings, production tables, variants etc. Sure, I will cite it, but need time to finish everything)))

What page?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

La-7 —-> experimental “130” —-> La-9 https://books.google.com/books?id=kY5HBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=ла-7+ла-9+якубович&source=bl&ots=1__WgIHg4L&sig=ACfU3U25TpNcTHJYus3olTio05YdegERxA&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi53PPgvbDiAhVsrlkKHSKwDSEQ6AEwF3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ла-7%20ла-9%20якубович&f=false The whole chapter 5 in the book of the same author. The chapter is about La-9 and the title of the chapter is “all-metal La-7”, by the way...

Thank Ghod for translation programs! I see your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the translation programs help us a lot )))

Please learn to sign your messages by using four tildes (~) in a row.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T29

The article German torpedo boat T29 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T29 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Hornet (CV-12)

The article USS Hornet (CV-12) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Hornet (CV-12) 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 Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Last one to check

G'day Sturm, if you could check the last one of mine in the May monthly contest, I think we're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Brillant and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 Milhist contest

		The WikiChevrons
		For placing first in the May 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with an incredible 180 points from 34 articles, I hereby award you these WikiChevrons on behalf of the project. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Henri IV

Hey, do we want to include this one? It's markedly smaller than the other French battleships of the period, and Jordan & Caresse call it a "coast defence battleship" and include it only in an appendix. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, lessee what others call it. Conway's includes it with the battleships rather than with the coast defense ships. It's in Preston's BBs of WWI, but Gille groups it with the coast defense ships and so do Berthelot & Derenbourg, so the nay's have it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey don't forget about your comments on Jean Bart.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Works for me - one less section to do on the list ;)

Oh yeah, will do. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Normandie-class battleship, German torpedo boat Albatros, and Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

GANs

Hi Sturm. I may get the chance to assess some of your GANs. If I do, would you prefer me to do a 'straight' assessment against the GA criteria, or assume that they will be moving on to at least ACR and be a little pickier? I am easy either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Verily, sirrah, thou dost honor me above all others with thine bounteous offer! The battleships are the only ones likely to go to FAC anytime soon as we approach the endgame for completing our first-stage goal of getting every article up to GA status to qualify as the largest GT in Wikipedia. We're kinda aiming at finishing that by the end of the year, except for the FLCs which take forever to get promoted, so I might have skimped a little on details necessary to pass the A-class criteria in the interests of getting the GAN started earlier. That said, if you identify any significant lacunae in the articles, please speak up and I'll fix them. Other than that, do your worst, sirrah! I tend to write to FAC standards anyways for MOS stuff, but I'm always finding little things that I've missed, so I don't mind stress-testing articles earlier than required. And I'm always happy to get suggestions for cleaner prose as I have no illusions about the quality of my writing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T30

The article German torpedo boat T30 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T30 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1940) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T31

The article German torpedo boat T31 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T31 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Kent (1901)

The article HMS Kent (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Kent (1901) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What's up?

Hi. Long time no see. Hope you're well! We're due another contest at some point me thinks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your hard work promoting ships to GA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov‎

Given your work on the article, it seems only right to mention this. You're probably the best judge, after all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 22:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice work, Adam.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Glasgow (1909)

The article HMS Glasgow (1909) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Glasgow (1909) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

French battlehsip Courbet

Yeah, sorry about those "when" tags. I wasn't smart enough to actually read the cited source material before I added them; I just saw a pair of highly vague statements... in a featured article.

Speaking of, is anyone scutinizing the punctuation in these articles before nominating them, or... is it fashionable nowadays to have gaps in commas and periods? I'm somewhat out of the loop on Wikipedia's current standards; been a while since I've actively edited, but it seems like some people have been slipping in their vigilance. I don't know, when I re-read MOS:COMMA, it didn't easily clarify — for me, anyway — where it'd be better to use other punctuation, so I've kind of been making it up as I go, trying to... well, trying to organize and reword things so they flow a little better, instead of having a forest of commas. Any advice would be appreciated; I'd hate to end up in an edit war with someone over comma use. :( Magus732 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of grammarians at FAC even if they don't review every article. A couple of my articles have had the benefits of their attentions, although I don't recall if Courbet was one of them or not.

What do you mean by "gaps in commas and periods"? Extra spaces? Typos, like the poor, will always be among us; it's always a little disturbing to me when one of my articles makes the front page and I get a few typos corrected, despite multiple pairs of eyes during the FAC, ACR, and GAN. The safest thing is to post your changes to the talk page; the fastest, obviously, is to make them to the article and see if they get reverted. I'd strongly suggest starting out small so you haven't invested a lot of time in making changes to see them get reverted and failing to come to some sort of agreement. Personally, I've found that maybe 80% of the prose edits that people make to "my" articles range from actively making things worse to stylistic changes that don't really make much difference, as far as I can tell. So I'm a little biased against changes though I try to keep an open mind as I'm usually not in love with my own prose. It can be a real pain to try and salvage the worthwhile changes from those that aren't, which is why I suggest staying small and giving people a couple of days to react rather than doing a couple of dozen changes at a time.

I do tend to use semi-convoluted sentences as I think that they're usually more precise if you can keep track of the various clauses, but that tends to get cleaned up a bit at ACR and FAC. But I'm aware of my tendency and will usually accept changes in the interest of streamlining the prose if I think that they do simplify things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't deliberately trying to criticize anyone in particular; I realize that, just like me, people make mistakes and aren't perfect. What I meant was — and forgive me if you answered this already and I didn't see it — does anyone doublecheck little errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. before submitting the articles for nomination? I mean, when I see an article on the front page of Wikipedia, I want it to represent the best work that can be done on this site. Again, I realize no one's perfect, but I've encountered more than a few articles with mismatched English varieties, military articles using civil time/date formats halfway through the text. Several articles I've found — some of them bios for US or British military personnel — have the ships' prefixes listed with their names (ie. HMS Belfast, instead of simply Belfast, for an article about a British naval officer), and it's something I've seen on quite a lot of pages recently. I wasn't aware it was necessary to do that when the ships in question are as strongly tied to a region as the main focus of the article; I thought it was only necessary when the ships don't have ties to the subject matter. If there's a nice, big, long list of all the rules for all of this stuff somewhere, I haven't found it yet, but that's just my luck; I'm sure it's written down someplace, but I've yet to find it.

By "gaps", I specifically mean unneeded spaces (which is an irritating trend, by the way), or — and I've covered this one a lot lately — periods and commas where they shouldn't be, or not being where they should be. Not to beat a dead horse, but... that kind of thing really sticks in my craw; I mean, really, how hard is it for someone to just look over the thing before they submit changes to an article? I always do. I don't always catch everything the first time, but I try not to leave the page until I'm sure that I'm done with whatever I'm doing. I guess I just wish others were that commited to improving the place.

*sigh* Sorry to rant and rave, but... you've critiqued my work. You know what I tend to focus on when I made/make edits. We've... I'm trying to think of the right way to say it; "butted heads" seems about right. I've been away for quite a bit, but in my absense, it seems like very little has changed. Magus732 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revenge-class battleship

The article Revenge-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Revenge-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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrei Pervozvanny-class battleship

The article Andrei Pervozvanny-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrei Pervozvanny-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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian battleship FPC

You may be interested in this: File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 07 Chesma - Restoration, cropped.jpg. This is the image you have in your lead for the GA article Russian battleship Chesma (1886) and is now restored and looking nice and shiny. Of course I'm not telling you to vote one way or the other - that's up to you. The FPC is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chesma. Geoffroi (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup

When you get a chance, please could you take a look at a statement I have made on the WikiCup talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese cruiser Agano

The article Japanese cruiser Agano you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Agano 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) 01:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christopher Cradock

The article Christopher Cradock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christopher Cradock 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Two ARCs

Damn Sturm two of your ARCs nominations are ready for A-class. Both have four supports. Good job soldier. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, just have to focus on keeping the pipeline full. Working on one now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 40 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, congratulations for your WikiChevrons. Thank you for your help in 40 reviews between those months and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You are quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Milhist contest

		The WikiChevrons
		For placing first in the June 2019 Milhist article writing contest, on behalf of the coordinators I hereby award you these WikiChevrons. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply...

Sorry to see you go; you were doing good things that I largely had no intent on changing. But none of us can expect to have our own way in everything here, so if you want to take your toys home, that's your privilege.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

*sigh*... I see my point wasn't very clear. It isn't a matter of "taking my toys home"; it seems my unfamiliarity with consensus and the MOS for military pages will only serve to bring further conflict/headaches. Rather than continue to muddle through editting, picking up other editors' grievances along the way, I'd rather not contribute at all. Honestly... for now, it's just easier this way. Let someone else take the time to deal with small stylistic issues with pages. If no one wants to double check punctuation and grammar problems with an article, or attempt to organize section headings in a manner that allows for easier page navigation and linking... viewers unfamiliar with the subject matter might be completely lost looking for information in an article, but I suppose that's their problem, isn't it? :) Magus732 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for French battleship France, HMS Bulwark (1899), and Japanese battleship Yashima Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lord Nelson-class battleship

The article Lord Nelson-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lord Nelson-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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A question for you

Hey, you have Friedman's book on US cruisers, don't you? Does he treat the St. Louis-class cruiser (1938) as a class apart from the rest of the Brooklyns? I'd never seen them described as such and I just checked Conway's, and they lump them all together. I'd like to merge the articles if possible. Oh, and can you send me scans of the relevant pages on the Brooklyns please? I figure I'll get around to doing them all at some point, if only to procrastinate finishing the Richelieus ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, separate class. Built with lighter and more powerful machinery which meant that they were arranged differently internally and they fitted with the 5"/38 as built, unlike the Brooklyns. Gimme some time to clean up my scans for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I recently read a detailed note (maybe in a recent Warship International?) on the AA upgrades for the two St. Louis's that you might not be aware of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah, I've only started to scratch the surface on these, having stumbled on the Helena mess the other day. Thanks for the tip. Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I saw you added a WI question from 2019 to the Helena ref section - I'm guessing that's what you're talking about? Can you send me a scan of that as well? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

See, that's exactly why I've started adding sources to articles that I'm not immediately interested in as I stumble across them as my obviously failing memory is hopeless at retaining something. I'll add it to the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that's what I need to do - I was flipping through my old editions of WI last night to see what might pique my interest and kept thinking "I'm not going to remember this is here when I get around to that article..." Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You should get a subscription. I know exactly what you mean as I was intrigued by an article on US net- and minelayers that were converted into amphibious transports in the latest issue that arrived yesterday. I have a bunch of duplicate back issues that I could pawn off sell you that I've acquired as I've been trying to rebuild my collection after the fire.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should - I'd be interested in lightening your load though ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Were you yanking my chain on the Brooklyns? He refers to "the last two modified Brooklyn, the St. Louis and the Helena" and "the nine Brooklyns and their heavy half-sister, Wichita". Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but I only read the bit on pp. 206–207 where they seemed to constitute a separate class. He does treat them as a separate class in the ship characteristics appendix. I'll send you a copy of that page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, so it seems that he's halfway between treating them as a separate class and halfway as a subclass. Stille's US Navy Light Cruisers 1941–45 treats them as all one class, as does Conway's - I wonder what Whitley's book on cruisers calls them. Looking at the cover, I think I might have the book, but I'm not sure. But at this point, I'm inclined to just treat them as a subclass of the Brooklyns and merge the pages. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Whitley would agree; he lumps them in all together. I think a subclass is appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get around to merging them at some point. Any chance you're feeling the strange, uncontrollable urge to send me a scan of his pages on them? Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The only strange and uncontrollable urge that I'm feeling right now the need to beat on the QE-class article. Finally read the relevant chapter of Friedman and he's overturned the traditional understanding of how the ships were developed. Happy to take comments on what I've done so far if you've got the time. But I'll try to get to the scans soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I'm glad at least one of us is feeling that. Oh, I checked and I do have Whitley, so no need to worry about that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Just merged them - let's see if I get any push back ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy 21st July

Happy 21st July cannot wait for the firework have a nice day. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you too!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 Wikiproject Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the July 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 75 points from 9 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Csepel

The article SMS Csepel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Csepel 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) 02:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Orjen

The article SMS Orjen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Orjen 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) 23:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for French battleship Iéna, French battleship Gaulois, and Lyon-class battleship Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese cruiser Unebi

The article Japanese cruiser Unebi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Unebi 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Vauquelin (1931)

The article French destroyer Vauquelin (1931) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Vauquelin (1931) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMAS Perth (D29)

The article HMAS Perth (D29) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMAS Perth (D29) 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) 06:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Cog (warship)

Hi Sturmvogel. I wonder if I could ask a favour? Please feel entirely free to respond "No". I have felt the need for a specialist article on Cog (warship) for a while, and have finally got round to making a start on doing something about it. The sketchy outline is here. There is a lot still to do, but hopefully the approach I am taking is clear. I know, as you know, nothing about how to put together ship articles and even less about sailing ships. (OK, I have read the Hornblower novels.) I would appreciate it if you could skim what I have so far and let me know if in your opinion there are any sections or subsections missing, or superfluous. Obviously feel free to comment on or alter anything else you wish, but the top line overview is what I feel I need, lest I waste a lot of time. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Been meaning to reply. I'd be happy to help, although you'll have to do most of the heavy lifting as this is way earlier than the ships that I'm interested in and I have almost nothing related to ships of this period. I do have a few references to sailing warships of the Stuart and Georgian periods, plus I've read Hornblower, Aubrey & Maturin, Bolitho and just about every other Age of Sail naval series as well. I can help out with the structural stuff like links and formatting, but most of my assistance will be limited to kibitzing your work. How do you want to handle that sort of stuff? Bullet points on the talk page of your draft as if I were reviewing it for GAN or something? I'm game for most anything, so whatever works best for you is fine by me. I will have to read the existing sailing ship articles to get an idea of what to include, although I'm fairly confident that none of them are GA or better, which is kinda where I think you want to head. Your bibliography certainly looks like it could support a FAC, although I don't know if you want to invest that kind of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel. Thank you. All I wanted was a 20 minute check that I wasn't missing anything obvious; as you suggest, the other sailing ship articles are of limited assistance. That said, I have never done a collaboration on an article and I probably need to start; and this is an article which would seem to lend itself to collaboration; and I would be flattered to collaborate with you. I'm reasonably OK for sources, but could do with more on the Baltic. (Off topic, I am rereading my way through the whole Hornblower series at the moment.)

So long as it is draft, either comment on the talk page or inline in the draft as you wish. I'm thinking of pitching it at the lower end of A class and seeing how it goes. I anticipate broadness being the sticking point. 18 months ago I was happily writing at the lower end of B class, I now find it difficult to write below ACR-. I have half an eye on using some of the material from this to improve Cog (ship); although there may not be enough discrete material to support two articles. We'll see. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Little clean-ups in the FA-classes

Hey, Sturm, I hope you don't mind if I'll clean-up a little bit in you FA-classes? Like changing remands of both kinds of English styles or linking stuff which hasn't been linked or changing little things some sentences? About the last part if one of my changes doesn't fit in the context or doesn't seem necessary (especially in American English) then you can ping me mate. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Great to hear, I just finished your first FA-article. Hope you like my changes. Now excuse me I have some work to do. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Marengo

You reverted my page move of French ship marengo. But there have been many ships of the same name so the title should be disambiguated by launch year as stated in the rules you sent me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Marengo Why do you disagree? Alan Evans (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that you're talking about French ironclad Marengo? If so, the fact that there aren't any other French ironclads with that name means that disambiguating by year is pointless. WP:NC-SHIP says for warships of navies that don't use prefixes you should use the format: <nationality> <type> <italicized name> and an optional launch year disambiguator if necessary. All of the other military Marengos should use this format although I've not had much luck try to get people to use French ship of the line X.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Chevalier Paul (1932)

The article French destroyer Le Chevalier Paul (1932) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Chevalier Paul (1932) 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) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks

Good morning. Had replaced some redlinks in a few articles a few years ago, and a more senior editor pointed out that the redlinks were meant for articles likely to be created. They then advised that redlinks that have existed for over half a decade – and definitely those existing for over a decade – have gone long past the notion of "likely". They also pointed me to WP:REDBLUE for some help in holding my temptation to keep all redlinks, no matter how old and proven unlikely to leap to existence many years after the fact. You will notice that I left other redlinks in place that were "only" four years old in those articles, holding out hope that they were going to become real. With regard to the German M-class minesweepers, there are articles on only 2 of the 118 such ships, making it unlikely that the other 116 (including the 3 in the article we're talking about) would suddenly be vaulted to an importance that would attract their own pages, after nearly a decade as redlinks. As such, I did not exactly drop redlinks, but instead salvaged the information by adding the link to the M-class minesweeper (Germany) group, so that the reader could still find out more about these ships. Jmg38 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The real question, I suppose, is if there's enough information available to support the creation of an article on whatever the redlink is about. There's certainly enough for the 20th Destroyer Flotilla, but even the individual German minesweepers could get a start-class article limited to a description of the ship coupled with whatever incidental mentions could be found of their activities in the standard references. And I'd be OK with that if somebody decided to start building articles like those, even if I'd prefer to see B-class articles or better. Not least because it's easier to add something to an existing article when you stumble across a mention on an individual ship than to create one from scratch if all that exists is a class article. At any rate, that's pretty much my criteria for redlinks, and I really don't give a damn about SEAOFBLUE as I often have to violate it to link a rank, a person and the position that he held, forex, in a well-written sentence.

The concern was not about a sea of blue, which makes sense in many situations, as with the example you mention. The editing guidelines provided at WP:REDLINK address a bit about the need to create articles that are about topics that are "notable and verifiable" - a criteria which each-and-every-one of the 118 German M-class minesweepers is unlikely to meet. How unlikely? More than 11 years after the M-class minesweeper (Germany) article was created, no editor has found reason to start building articles for all 118 of these working ships. By the same token, more than 8 years after the three M-boats in the HMS Esk (H15) article were added, no editor has found reason to turn them into standalone articles. There is simply a point were an item is not "notable", or "verifiable", or sometimes both. Per WP:NOPAGE, "related topics provide context", in this case, the HMS Esk and the M-class minesweeper articles provide context for these three particular minesweepers. If you feel these three ships do standout in some way, as compared to the 116 other M-class minesweepers, then you may want to create their articles, but - after a decade - the community has not seen this as needed. I fully support you if you can find "notable and verifiable" for M 61, M 89, and M 136, but leaving them as redlinks for another decade is not the way to move forward. None of this is meant to disparage these ships, they just don't rise to the point of standalone articles per the editing guidlines. Thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I've been writing articles on German warships for more than a decade, and I haven't gotten down to vessels that small. Are each of them notable? Probably not. But the idea that they aren't simply because I (or anyone else) haven't gotten to them yet is not based in logic. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of warships have been built over the years and there are only a few dozen editors actively working on ship articles, so I'm afraid that I find that fact that the minesweepers in question haven't received any love in the last decade entirely irrelevant. WP:NUNIT assumes that any commissioned warship is inherently notable and the minesweepers definitely meet WP:GNG as I could build a fully cited article for each of them simply using references like Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships or Gröner's German Warships 1815–1945 if I chose to, although the articles wouldn't be very complete regarding their activities. I simply don't find them of interesting enough to do so and, obviously, nobody else has either. But that's entirely irrelevant to the issue of their notability and verifiability. And eliminating their redlinks reduces the chance that somebody will pickup on the fact that they lack articles and be motivated to start one.

I've created over a thousand articles, including ones on much more glamorous and thoroughly covered battleships and cruisers, that nobody cared enough about to start even a stub before I came along, and all of them have sources enough to satisfy GNG. I do not think that you are cognizant of all of the sources available on warships to properly judge what is truly notable and verifiable, nor do you appear to understand that article coverage is driven by editor interest, not somebody's idea of "what should or shouldn't be covered", so I'd ask you to stop eliminating ship and naval redlinks of all types entirely and self-revert those that you have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated - looking at your user page, you've j-u-u-st beat me for number of US states you've been in, but it looks like you have almost all 13 that I haven't been to yet. Cool. Jmg38 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly the bulk of those were just passing through; I've been to Honolulu airport several times, but have never seen the rest of Hawaii. One of these days!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for List of battleships of Japan, Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō, and Japanese battleship Hatsuse. Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the August 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 112 points from 13 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Kersaint (1931)

The article French destroyer Kersaint (1931) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Kersaint (1931) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Triomphant

The article French destroyer Le Triomphant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Triomphant 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T32

The article German torpedo boat T32 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T32 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) 01:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Tartu (1931)

The article French destroyer Tartu (1931) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Tartu (1931) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

I come to you as the warship guru; though my request is somewhat of a different era! I'm hoping you might at least be able to point me in the right direction if you don't have the answer. I'm currently working Siege of Lyme Regis towards A-class and hopefully FA status. I mention two ships that helped to reinforce the besieged town; the Mary Rose, and the Ann Joyce. I'm not necessarily bothered about making them blue links, but I would at least like to be able to link them both. Given that my Google searches don't show up anything about ships named Ann Joyce, is it sufficient to target the red link to English ship Ann Joyce, or do I need to know, and include the year, as seems to be the convention? Harrias ^talk 19:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing on any Ann Joyce serving with the Royal Navy, so I suspect that she must have been a hired ship. Without any further data, there's no way to disambiguate her, so the red link is fine as is. I built a stub for the Mary Rose, so at least that's a blue link now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! A second query; do you still have the Taylor & Francis account, and can you access this journal? Harrias ^talk 20:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I was never able to log into the account, so I'm afraid that I can't help you with that. And you're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries; I've just discovered that I can actually access it myself using my university alumni account, happy days! Harrias ^talk 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool, maybe I can ask you for copies if I need anything from the Mariner's Mirror!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer L'Audacieux

The article French destroyer L'Audacieux you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer L'Audacieux 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark 18

Try using a little maturity, and you can keep your "no shit" to yourself. Maybe try communicating without profanity. MartinezMD (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A polite inquiry as to my reasoning for adding the letter before deleting it would have been even politer. I was added a resource after all, not altering the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Fleuret (1938)

The article French destroyer Fleuret (1938) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Fleuret (1938) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T34

The article German torpedo boat T34 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T34 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 DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cannone navali da 381 1914.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cannone navali da 381 1914.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian monitor Faà di Bruno

The article Italian monitor Faà di Bruno you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian monitor Faà di Bruno 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T35

The article German torpedo boat T35 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T35 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T36

The article German torpedo boat T36 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T36 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) 08:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist

Hi Sturmvogel. I hope that you are going to be nominating yourself to be a MilHist coordinator again. If you are undecided, can I urge you to take two paces forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Hardi

The article French destroyer Le Hardi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Hardi 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cannone navale da 381/40

The article Cannone navale da 381/40 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cannone navale da 381/40 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Mameluk

The article French destroyer Mameluk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Mameluk 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) 03:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T21

The article German torpedo boat T21 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T21 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) 03:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you still happen to have this source?

• Hughes, David; et al. (1999). British Armoured and Cavalry Divisions. The British Armies in World War Two: An Organizational History. I. West Chester, OH: George F. Nafziger. ISBN 978-1-58545-050-3

Hi, so it seems a decade ago you added a table to the 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article, which contained the tanks the division had before it shipped out of the UK. It would appear, based off the edit you made, the table would also be sourced to p. 35 (along with the other information you inserted into the article). If you still happen to have this source, would you be able to verify that this is correct so I can add an inline citation to the table? Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Épée (1938)

The article French destroyer Épée (1938) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Épée (1938) 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Flibustier

The article French destroyer Le Flibustier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Flibustier 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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 looks at the legacy of World War II

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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer L'Indomptable

The article French destroyer L'Indomptable you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer L'Indomptable 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) 03:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS B10

The article HMS B10 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS B10 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) 23:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T20

The article German torpedo boat T20 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T20 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) 00:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Russian battleship Retvizan scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Russian battleship Retvizan article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 23, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 23, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Casque (1938)

The article French destroyer Casque (1938) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Casque (1938) 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci, French battleship Brennus, and Russian battleship Borodino. Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T19

The article German torpedo boat T19 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T19 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) 02:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Guderian GAN

Hi, could you put the nomination on hold? It looks like I need to work through some issues; it would probably take me a week or so. I would like to have the extra time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't formally put them on hold, but I'm in no hurry to close this. Take as long as you need; just keep me up to date on your progress. If you're having problems getting sources, I might be able to help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Malin

The article French destroyer Le Malin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Malin 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) 02:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Maillé Brézé (1931)

The article French destroyer Maillé Brézé (1931) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Maillé Brézé (1931) 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Lansquenet (1939)

The article French destroyer Lansquenet (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Lansquenet (1939) 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) 01:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Le Fantasque

The article French destroyer Le Fantasque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Le Fantasque 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) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS B9

The article HMS B9 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS B9 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) 01:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Siroco (1939)

The article French destroyer Siroco (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Siroco (1939) 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) 01:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T18

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German torpedo boat T18 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Cassard (1931)

The article French destroyer Cassard (1931) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Cassard (1931) 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, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from its threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Back! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Happy to work with you in the same team. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• And with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS B8

The article HMS B8 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS B8 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) 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T18

The article German torpedo boat T18 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T18 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the September 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving a record-breaking 262 points from 40 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Backlog Banzai

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for your efforts during the Backlog Banzai. Thank you for your contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 39 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

HMS Vindex (1915) / SS Viking (1905)

After creating a merger proposal for a Manx ferry which also served for the US Navy, I checked for other similar instances, and found these. You created the Vindex article, which passed a GA in 2011, while in 2015, the Viking article was created, and a link to it inserted into the Vindex article. To me, it seems wrong to have two articles for what is clearly one ship, but I wanted your input before proposing a merger, particularly as the one article is a Good article, so a simple merger would be likely to affect that. Harrias ^talk 12:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

HMS Resistance

I assume it was your intention to integrate the list of ship's captains of HMS Resistance into the text. You clearly forgot to do so! Shipsview (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Your material, not mine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vauquelin-class destroyer

The article Vauquelin-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vauquelin-class destroyer 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 4 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review an old nomination. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahem

I created the Book:Battleships of Japan, so if someone would like to put the FTC up... Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mkay--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

French battleship issues

There are a couple of problems that Peacemaker caught during his review of the French list (see here) - there's a discrepancy between the displacement figure for Brennus cited in the article and that in the list (I checked Jordan & Caresse and they have it at 11,400t, which is what I have in the list - I don't know where 11,370t is coming from), and then there are date discrepancies for all three Charlemagnes between the class article and the individual article. Can you double check Gille and correct whichever are wrong? Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Propozycje do Grup Artykułów/Lotniskowce warsztatowe Royal Navy

Hello

I want to thank you for your work. I translated your articles to pl.wiki and started voting in pl.wiki Featured topic candidates. That is probably best source of information about this warships in Polish language.

So - thank you for your work. Let`s just say that it`s internationally recognized :) PMG (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, but I'm not alone in this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for HMS Audacious (1912), Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov, Soviet cruiser Kalinin, Japanese battleship Kawachi, and Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940). Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done on your first A-Class Cross, Sturm! A massive effort over nearly a decade. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, guys.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the October 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 71 points from nine articles. Congratulations, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Le Hardi-class destroyer

The article Le Hardi-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Le Hardi-class destroyer 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) 23:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Sturm, would it be okay with you if I nominated German torpedo boat Albatros for TFA? Would you have any special advice before attempting a nomination? L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. The TFA people would get around to it at some point, but you can ask for a special date if you want. Usually people choose anniversaries of significant dates, like being laid down, commissioned or sunk, but you don't have to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

German torpedo boat Albatros scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the German torpedo boat Albatros article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nelson

Hello

In HMS Nelson (28) you put "became a private ship". I don't want to start GA review, but in my opinion this need some more description. It's description that he was not flagship? PMG (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I'll see if I can clarify it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Nelson (28)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Nelson (28) 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Battleships of Japan

		The Naval Articles Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in totally inadequate recognition of the tremendous work you have put into bringing Battleships of Japan to Featured Topic status. To apply an overused word literally - awesome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. I suspect that your work on the HYW will eventually equal this one if you stick with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Hyūga scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Japanese battleship Hyūga article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 27, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And to you as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Original year on Cite book

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit of the sources at HMS Gloucester (62).[8] I made the edit after reading the style guide at {{Cite book}}, which states:

"orig-year: Original publication year; displays in square brackets after the date (or year). For clarity, please supply specifics. For example: |orig-year=First published 1859 or |orig-year=Composed 1904. Alias: origyear"

I'm aware that local consensus on articles can overturn most guidance, so I won't contest your reversion. However, you may want to note the guidance, as other editors are likely to follow it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that as you are correct. I'll revert my revert. I can only plead that I've never seen that usage before. I do have a question about editions, though. Are you sure that those books that you have noted as 2nd editions are actually such and not mere reprints?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. No one can be aware of every line of guidance. I only discovered it because I needed guidance on how to record details for new editions and reprints.

In the context of the Gloucester article, the only 2nd edition I am aware of is Otter, which an earlier editor inserted. However, my later reprint agrees that it was first published in 1999 and a second edition was published in 2001. A further reprint occurred in 2004 and I have the 2017 ePub version. If there are other "2nd editions" I have identified on other articles, then I will be happy to go back to my collection to double check. If I own a copy, I make sure to refer to the publisher details page for the correct citation information. If I am using an online extract (for example, from Google books), I plug the ISBN into World Cat and record all the edition details there. However, if the World Cat database contains an error then that may be reflected in a small number of my edits. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Otter is a true 2nd edition. There is one problem with his book though in that we have both chapter and individual pages cites. I have the epub edition as well and used chapters as page numbers will change depending on the size of your screen. How did you get your page numbers?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have used page numbers for Otter. Those are probably from an earlier editor. There are a few pages of the book on Google books, so it is possible I copied a page number from there but I am almost certain I have only used chapter numbers or section titles for Otter. In terms of handling the inconsistency going forward, I guess that we could convert all the references to eBook format (Chapters/sections/paragraphs) or another editor with a physical copy could convert them all to page numbers. WP:PAGENUM is silent on inconsistent formatting of the same source but the implication is that page numbers are favoured over ebook references because they are more precise. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Genuine page numbers are definitely preferred because of their precision, which is why I really prefer working from a .pdf copy rather than an .epub if I can't get a hold of the actual book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

On a related point, you may not be familiar with the ISBN links generated next to each citation. If you click on one, you will go to a special wiki page for book sources. From there you can click on any of the Online Database links. I favour World Cat but the others should also be useful alternatives. It is a great way to double check if an editor has recorded the citation details correctly. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Nelson (28)

The article HMS Nelson (28) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Nelson (28) 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad!

Merry Christmas! Hope yours is joyful. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, and to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas, heh, maybe a little bit late but hey I needed a little break for my family. I hope you had a great Christmas like I did. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not at all, it was good to see my family again. Happy New Year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Great to hear you had a great Christmas. Had you a snowy Christmas because I'm really looking envy to the northern states of the US? Because there is barely snow here. :/ But hey you have still a chance to share Valentine's Day with someone in 2020, another year another chance. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Living in Virginia, I usually don't have a white Christmas :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Aww damnit, anyway I hope you like my Christmass present? Also, a happy New Year to you 'cause New Year is knocking at my door. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure that it was deserved, but I appreciate it anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year awards

		The Silver Wiki
		As voted by the members of the project, please accept this Silver Wiki as the first runner-up in the Military Historian of the Year awards for 2019. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PM!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 Military History Writers' Contest Cup

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a staggering total of 1,412 points from 209 articles throughout the year. Congratulations and thank you for your efforts! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing. Well done. Setting yourself a high bar for this year! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One does what one can! Now I'm curious how well I've been competing against myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Warship 2009

Hey Sturm, I'm seeing a reference to Jaime I on page 179 in a snippet view on Google - could you send me what they have on the ship? I'm trying to beat them into shape for eventual FAC runs. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

While I'm poking around, you don't happen to have Warship International 89/2, do you? I've only got 89/1 from that year, and there's a question on Jaime I that looks to be useful from the snippet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I do have 89/2, but cannot find any reference to Jaime I. Can you give me a page number?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - it's on page 95. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That puts it in issue 1, not 2, since each issue is about 100 pages or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotta love Google Books - it says it's Vol. 26, which should be 89/2. Thanks for looking. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro-class destroyer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro-class destroyer 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Broad-scope FAs

Your comment here resonated with me, although it's sort of lost in a thread about mixed topics. I did most of the work on what is Musical instrument today and certainly have the expertise to bring it to Featured quality, but the task is utterly daunting. When I even dipped my toe in the pool, I discovered vicious disagreement over the authoritative works in the field and so on. I'm sure I could nominate it and try to steamroll it through hoping no one appears with a dissenting view, but that's not really the spirit of collaboration. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it really, really helps to be on the same page of music with your collaborator(s) regarding the scope/content/etc. of the article to be worked on. Me and another fellow who seemed sympatico decided to work together on a ship article a few years ago with the ultimate intent of bringing it to FA and the experience was a nightmare. He wouldn't bend on any number of things despite my arguments against (policy didn't explicitly support my positions, although I'd argue that he violated their spirit) and I dropped him and it once we passed GA. For something like your article I imagine that even deciding which disputes to include at what level would leave you open to charges of bias by ill-spirited editors and all-around unpleasantness as they try and nitpick their way through the article saying you've over-emphasized X and under-emphasized Y, and cherry-picked Z, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The biggest issue is that Curt Sachs is considered the gold standard for serious writing on the history and classification of musical instruments. Any other serious work cites him. But his work is incredibly focused on the "western world" and his narrative basically begins when Europe began trading with Asia and Africa and discovering what they'd been up to. There aren't any English-language histories of musical instruments from other parts of the world. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, might you be able to narrow the subject some by creating a daughter page discussing the history of European musical instruments? That would at least allow your recent work to be recognized. Obviously, that's not ideal, but I'd expect that the chances of finding other knowledgeable Wikipedians with the right language skills to cover Asian and African instruments and willing to collaborate to be close to zero.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T17

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German torpedo boat T17 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A question for you

What's your opinion of this? Think it's enough to warrant a stand-alone article? I've refrained from doing articles on the two unfinished Bayerns for some time now, but I wonder if Nottelmann might push it up and over the bar for a stand-alone article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool - I'll finish tinkering with it and move it over - never a bad day when I get to make my FT one article bigger ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thought you might like that answer. Just be sure to update the infobox before you nominate it for anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha, I came in search of a yes man and you didn't disappoint ;) And yeah, the box was a mess before - goes to show all the stuff I was doing wrong in 2016, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 22 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro-class destroyer

The article Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro-class destroyer 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi Sturmvogel. I've been on Wikipedia for a little over two weeks (but have made over 100 edits). I've read through several of the pages regarding article review and I couldn't find if an article is required to make the progress from B to Good article to A to featured article or if it can be nominated for any of the levels at any time if the person doing the nominating feels it has met all the requirements. You have authored many excellent articles so I am hoping you will know this answer.

If you have the time, would you mind looking over the article 119th Field Artillery Regiment and let me know your thoughts? I believe it meets all featured article standards but I might have missed something. Also, I am not sure how or where to put it up for review. Do I do so on the talk page for the article or on the taskforce page for United States military history where I found the article tagged as needing citations two weeks ago?

Thank you for your time. Boston1775 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I added some comments on the article talk page. Boston1775 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome. No, you can skip any of the ratings, but it's not advisable to do so as other people's eyes are quick to see things that you cannot because you're too familiar with the material. I myself often skip the B-class rating if I'm confident that the article is already for a Good Article Nomination. OTOH, I wouldn't dream of sending an article to Featured Article candidate without passing both a GAN and a MilHist A-class Review. If you wish to be a regular at FAC, you don't want to be know for submitting unprepared nominations. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions will tell you how to nominate an article for GA. The other two links will show you how to start an A-class review and a FAC respectively. I'll take a look at your article and leave my comments on it there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. I look forward to your comments and then I will decide what to do moving forward. I'm very highly detailed oriented. I've done editing most of life although it isn't what I do for a career. And congrats on all the awesome articles. I often read Wikipedia articles on ships and find them fascinating. It's nice to meet one of the main contributors to the articles I have been reading for years. Boston1775 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article in very long. Over 100,000 characters. If it's too long for you to review let me know. Cheers. Boston1775 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hornet, etc.

Up through WW2 the US Navy used a very specific set of rules for naming ships: Battleships for states, cruisers for cities, submarines for fish and other sea-creatures, oilers for rivers, tugboats for Indian tribes etc. Aircraft carriers were explicitly named for (1) famous battles and (2) historic Navy ships. The carrier Hornet was named, directly, for the brig Hornet of the War of 1812, NOT the insect, just as Essex was named for the 32-gun frigate and Ranger was named for John Paul Jones' ship. Hornet CV-12 was named for CV-8 after her loss in 1942.

Show me an official USN document stating as such. Popular press often portrays things as you say, but in reality, the USN just chooses to reuse the name for PR reasons, like with Hornet, Lexington and Yorktown.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

show me an official USN document stating it was named for a bug.

Don't use dodges like slagging "popular press" when the pattern is before your very eyes. In fact, authority for naming USN vessels has always lain with the Secretary of the Navy, who technically is under no constraints, but none dared violate tradition until the postwar era. Aside from Langley (a converted collier), *every* American CV commissioned through 1945 was named for either a battle or a famous ship, just as every battleship was named for a state. You are the one responsible for the insect claim: if you want to play the RS game then it's on you to produce the evidence. Solicitr (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Just what do you think the first Hornet, Wasp, etc. were named for?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

THEY were, yes, 200 years ago. But the 20th century aircraft carriers were named for the ships which had, long ago, been named for insects, just like Enterprise, Ranger and Reprisal were named for warships of the sailing Navy. Again, the USN used to have naming conventions for each ship-type, including carriers. The original names selected for the first eight Essex class were all of this sort: Essex, Bon Homme Richard, Intrepid, Kearsarge, Franklin, Hancock, Randolph, Cabot. Those last four were not named directly for, e.g., Peyton Randolph (a name with little resonance in the 1940s!), but for the Continental Navy frigate which was named for him Solicitr (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German torpedo boat T17

The article German torpedo boat T17 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T17 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We could use your help identifying which article you think is most important

I'm soliciting your input on behalf of The Signpost for the upcoming "community view" piece. If you could, please contribute to that draft which article written on en-wp since November 1st, 2015 you think is most significant. I know that you're very content-focused and likely have insight to which articles out of the million written since November 2015 are really important. We'd need your input (110 words or less) within seven days, if not sooner. Thank you for your time. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, not sure that I can really help, but I'll think on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup query

Hi Sturm. I wonder if you could help me with a couple of WikiCup queries? Both around the bonus points.

1. If I submit a GA or FA for scoring and it is eligible for bonus points, do I need to do anything to indicate this, or does the bot pick it up automatically?
2. Is there any guidance anywhere on how to run a query through the Wikidata query service to identify how many Wikipedias an article appears on as of 31 December 2019? "Input a SPARQL query ..." Say what? (It says: "It is a simple matter to request (or run yourself) a query" Clearly not simple enough for me!)

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the bot handles this automatically. IIRC, it looks at the article history to check the # of languages as of 31 December. Let me know if you have any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gog, the way I check is to look on Wikidata. So, if we want to look up the Battle of Ligny, we can visit it on Wikidata. Then, View History, and go to the last one before 31 December. (In this case, that is the current version.) Scroll to the bottom, and on the left, it will tell you how many Wikipedias it is on. In this case, 22. Harrias ^talk 22:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias: that looks good. My question is: How do I "look up" an article? Is it through this? If so, what do I type or click to get to the output page you illustrate for Battle of Ligny? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Cancel that. I believe that I have cracked it. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: It looks as if one needs to insert the multiplier by hand. So I have done this, trying to copy what other contestants have done. If it breaks the system, apologies in advance. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad info; I'd looked at submissions by a couple of people and didn't see any with multipliers written out, just the bot's imprimatur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be automatic, but for some reason the bot got it wrong on Battle of Lagos. See this bot edit for example. Harrias ^talk 19:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fix! Even the bot is against me . I should have a GA going in shortly, let's see what it makes of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no, I think it was because you formatted it wrong. The bot is looking for the format in the example: # [[ARTICLE]] [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ARTICLE/archive#]], but you just had # [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ARTICLE/archive#]]. Without the link to the article, it couldn't find the interwiki links to give a multiplier. Harrias ^talk 23:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Drat! A rational explanation. OK, I'll try that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Welcome aboard Sturm! It's been too long since the last one! I was tempted to do another Dragon but I want to see the whole thing improved!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This one will be challenging since I don't think that I have enough Pevsners to cover 10 counties. I'll have to see what volumes I can scrape up! March might be a bit soon, though. We'll have to see how many people sign up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, it proved too early when I did the Welsh one but I don't intend doing a lot of grunt work building lists this time. Hopefully I can get somebody to create a bank of stubs and make it easier for people to find them. The listed building websites always have info on every building in every county!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, it gives me great pleasure to award you the WikiChevrons, for coming first in the January 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving a stunning 228 points from 70 articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Fancy a source review?

Hi Sturm. You kindly carried out a source review for Battle of Sluys when it was at ACR - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sluys. It is now up for FAC -Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Sluys/archive1 - (not before time I hear you say) and in want of a source review. Just saying. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gog the Mild: Hasn't buidhe done this already? Harrias ^talk 19:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Senility, senility, all is senility. Harrias is correct, ignore this garbage. Gah! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, I did the same thing asking Nikkimaria for an image review, which I'd have seen if I'd bothered to scroll down all the way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Question for you

I'm trying to rationalize the List of ironclad warships of France page a bit and I've got a bit of a problem deciding where to stick Rochambeau - she's the only casemate ironclad the French acquired, and it seems a bit much to create a separate section for her. She's currently in the floating battery category, which isn't right either. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I've got a box put together here, but it might need to be re-ordered - I just looked at launching years. But we can cross that bridge once we get the articles written and actually look at the construction programs and such. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have any issues with putting Rochambeau in her own section, but I suppose she'd be a better fit in the coast defense ship section if you'd prefer not to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world to have a single-ship section. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Had a look at Sieche - he has 8 August as the date of the bombardment of Antivari - does that jive with Freivogel? Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

He has a bombardment of a radio station at Cape Voluvica on 8 August and then Antivari two days later. Cernuschi & O'Hara also say Antivari on 8 August and no mention of Cape Voluvica at all. And actually looking up the cape, it's next to Antivari, just south of the harbor. So the 8th is good, but now I'm wondering what happened on the 10th since nobody else has anything about it. I'll get that straightened out later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question - the next entry for Szigetvar is on 24 August (and for Zenta, he jumps from 8 August to the 18th). Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, Freivogel's book on the Adriatic Campaign will have an answer, but I probably won't get it until next week, so we'll just have to skip over it for the nonce.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Have created French ironclad Furieux - cite bomb away ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to oblige!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Beograd-class destroyer AA guns

G'day Sturm, were they all fitted with Skoda guns? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Don't worry, I'll update the others shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Raleigh (1919)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Raleigh (1919) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

• I know last year you had no luck on the day. I hope you had more luck this year. I did. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • On the road most of the day. Unwilling to chance ladies of negotiable affection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Curious how she look like. I wish you a lot of luck to get her. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Raleigh (1919)

The article HMS Raleigh (1919) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Raleigh (1919) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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 looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

BabbaQ's Wikicup nominations

Hello Sturmvogel, I believe you are a Wikicup judge this year?

I'm asking because I noticed the scoring bot had not updated BabbaQ's score, and in reformatting his submissions so the bot would recognize them, noticed that some of them look ineligible, notably in the DYK section where he submitted a number of articles he's done no or next to no work on. It looks as if he erroneously thought that merely reviewing other's submissions qualified for a score, which does not appear to be the case. These submissions I have commented out on his submissions page, but I would appreciate it if you checked them over as I have little familiarity with Wikicup.

BabbaQ also made a number of submissions for ITN, I haven't commented these out because he has done at least some work on the articles in question and I have no idea how Wikicup assesses these articles, so perhaps you could take a look through those too. Many thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into his submissions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles

Don't forget to add your entries to the bottom list. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Picky, picky!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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

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) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Beograd-class destroyer

See this for speed:

• Here
• Here
• Here
• Here
• Here

Finaly this:

• HERE - This is in Marine-Arsenal, Band 40 - Kriegsmarine in der Adria 1941-1945 (1998) by Dr Zvonimir Freivogel
• HERE and HERE - This is from Vesnik vojnog Muzeja, Razarači tipa "Beograd"- brodovi slavnih pogibija (2014) by Đorđe Jojić.

The maximum designed speed of the Beogad-class was 38 knots, but Beograd as achieved 39,2 knots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрејевић (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the sentence concerning the ship's speed in the description section? Trial speeds were much higher than they could sustain more heavily loaded, so I've used the latter as it's more accurate of what the ship could do in service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

One is the design speed and the other is the speed at maximum load. In the characteristics part shall be entered the designed speed with a note if there have been any changes, like in the case of a Le Fantasque-class destroyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрејевић (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Much like most Italian destroyers, the Beograds were designed for a much higher speed than they could sustain in service. The opposite of the Le Fantasques.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Roll-back feature

Please, if you don't like the resulting edit on the paqe ranges, then edit them so that they are all full. Your misuse of the rollback left some of them with 2 digits and some with 3. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not my job to fix your mistakes. Most of your edits were invisible to the reader, so I don't much care. Screw up MOS-related stuff for FAs, which are required to be MOS compliant, and I'll revert you. If you had notified me that there were still two-digit page ranges, I'd have fixed them. Just like I'm going to do now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is our "job" to improve WP articles and to encourage other editors along the way. (I could easily say "It's not my job to fix the mistake you made in leaving the two-digit cites.") Please note that WP:SFN says Chicago Manual of Style cites are fine. My edits have brought citation consistency to the very nice article you have shepherded along. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but when citation styles contradict MOS, guess which wins at FAC? There are a lot of my older FAs that I haven't gotten around to updating, so if you spot mixed usages, either fix them yourself as part of your gnoming or notify me. But please don't make them consistent the wrong way, which is what you were doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

USS Tucker (DD-374)

I wonder if you could find the time to resume your review of the USS Tucker (DD-374) article. I misspoke when I said that the reference used was from Friedman’s 1982 edition, it is from Friedman’s 2004-revised edition. Embarrassing, but true! In any event, I look forward to the next phase of your review. Pendright (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Vichy French Gabon

Can you please provide some source for this allegation? -- Derim Hunt (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the article on French Equatorial Africa, for one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There is again no source about that claim and in the article history of Gabon nothing – with a source – is mentioned of this. -- Derim Hunt (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

De Gaulle had to invade Gabon, it didn't go over peacefully like the rest of FEA. See Battle of Gabon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally a useful link. Thank you very much. On occasion, I should include a link to this article in the other mentioned Gabon articles. -- Derim Hunt (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive

Harrias ^talk 06:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Akagi and Hiryu port side bridges

I think it was you a few years ago who challenged something that I put in about the Akagi and Hiryu having port side bridges. I knew I had seen it online but couldn't find it again for a long time. Now I have, and here it is:

"They experimented with some port side superstructures, figuring that it could be put to advantage to facilitate signaling when ships where in formation under radio silence. The Akagi had one of the port side superstructures."

I presume this means Akagi operating with Kaga to its port side, and Hiryu operating with Soryu to its port side so that each carrier had its bridge and signalling masts on the side nearest the other carrier.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lengerer, in his recent book with Trojica on Japanese carriers, has a different explanation. He says that the small starboard side island fitted about 1/3 of the ship's length forward during the first reconstruction in the early thirties reduced the space available for take off and air turbulence from it affected the aircraft at the most critical point during the take-off roll. I probably need to add a discussion of all this to the article, but I do not believe that your source is correct. He has a long bibliography, but I cannot place any weight on his statement without knowing exactly where he got his information. I also find it implausible as putting the island on the port side would only save a meaningless 30 meters or so of distance when flags and blinkers can be read at many kilometers distance, depending on the visibility, of course. And if visibility were so inhibited that that 30 meters mattered, I rather doubt that they'd be conducting air operations at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the reduction in distance by thirty meters would have been the reason, rather it would have been to obtain clear line of sight unobstructed by smoke or whatever was happening on the deck. While I agree that air operations would not have been conducted in circumstances where visibility is so poor that the position of the bridge would have mattered, I don't think that the need to read signals would have been limited to times when air operations were underway. As for the turbulence that you mentioned, that could have been solved by simply moving the bridge aft, would not have required both moving it aft and switching to port side as was in fact done. If turbulence and not signalling had been the real reason, wouldn't Kaga and Soryu have also received port side bridges? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To amplify Parshall & Tully, they say that mid-1930s design studies suggested that turbulence over the aft flight deck could be reduced if the islands were separated from the exhaust uptakes so those of Akagi and Hiryu were moved over to the port side as an experiment. This turned out not to be true and the two Shokaku's had to be modified while under construction to switch their islands from port to starboard after lengthy trials were conducted aboard Akagi in '39–'39. Interestingly, they decided that their islands should also be moved more forward, back to the 1/3 of length position used by Akagi's first island. Shokaku was too far advanced to move the island forward, but Zuikaku wasn't and had it installed in the forward starboard position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Lanemiker (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

High Level Bombers at Pearl Harbor

Hello Sturmvogel 66,

Well, we finally meet after a long running battle back and forth!

I have to disagree with you on this one. I have studied the attack on Pearl Harbor for many years and have a vast library of books and research materials on the attack. Cmdr Mitsuo Fuchida led 49 B5N2 Kate high level bombers in the first wave of the attack. Lt Cmdr Shigeharu Murata led the 40 B5N2 Kate Torpedo Bombers. It was two high level bombers from Fuchida's group of 49 that dropped the bombs on Arizona.

I have this in several documents and it is even referenced in Mitsuo Fuchida's book Wounded Tiger that he led the way with his band of 49 level bombers. In the formation to his right, was Murata with his 40 torpedo bombers.

I do know what I am talking about. You are not dealing with someone who just picked up his first book on the attack on Pearl Harbor. I lived on O'ahu for two years and spent numerous hours at the Arizona Memorial Museum speaking with survivors on the attack. I was all over the island visiting the different sites of the attack.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to Cmdr Mitsuo Fuchida's B5N2 Kates as "high level bombers" as they were properly designated. They did drop their 800kg bombs from an altitude of approx 10,000 feet.

Other documents I have refer to them as horizontal bombers.

I would enjoy conversing with you on the attack on Pearl Harbor. I am always looking to pick up additional information.

Thank you very much!

Lanemiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanemiker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The facts are not in dispute, we are arguing about definitions. You place more weight on how the aircraft was used at Pearl, while I'm more concerned about its designed role. We both agree that the Kate could carry torpedoes and bombs. The aircraft was designed to meet a torpedo bomber specification with a secondary role as a conventional bomber as you can see if you read its article. At Pearl it performed in both roles. I see no reason to call it a high-level bomber when it was dropping bombs from 10,000 feet above Arizona because that's not high-altitude by any definition, that's medium altitude. But primarily, I refer to it using its designed role, no matter that it was acting in its secondary role. Since I used language that made it very clear that that group of Kates were dropping bombs from altitude rather than attacking it with torpedoes, I see no possibilities that readers might be confused about its activities.

When Avengers started dropping bombs on island targets in 1942–44, do you also think that they should be called high-level bombers because they're not carrying torpedoes and acting in their secondary role?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sturmvogel,

Thank you for your explanation. I still think the article on Wiki would be better served if it stated that the B5N2 Kates that dropped the bombs on Arizona was written as "horizontal bombers" as this was the role they were in the attack on Battleship Row. Fuchida led the 49 B5N2 Kate horizontal bombers, not torpedo bombers. Murata led the 40 B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers. I still think 10,000 is pushing the envelope as a "medium" bomber. They were referred to in many on my documents as "high level" bombers.

Why is the mentioning of the B5N2 Kates as torpedo bombers correct as you state it? Did you write the article for Wiki? Maybe you need to go back and do a little more homework on the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know that the Kates served multiple roles that day, but to say the Arizona was sunk by a B5N2 Kate torpedo bomber is not correct!

Did Lt Cmdr Shigekazu Shimazaki, leader of the Second Wave, lead with B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers? No! He flew B5N2 Kate horizontal bombers when he attacked Hickam Field. Did Lt Tatsuo Ichihara lead his B5N2 Kates to attack NAS Kaneohe Bay in the second wave, fly torpedo bombers? No! He led his attack with horizontal bombers! This is written in J Michael Wegner, Robert J Cressman and John F Di Virgilio's book "No One Avoided Danger, NAS Kaneohe Bay and the Attack of December 7th 1941. All of these gentlemen are very prominent Pearl Harbor historians. I have worked with other prominent Pearl Harbor historians over the years, one being the late David Aiken.

I wish that you see it through to change the title of the B5N2 Kates that bombed Battleship Row as "horizontal bombers."

We might just have to agree to disagree on this.

Have a nice day!

Best Regards, lanemiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanemiker (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I say that Arizona was sunk by a B5N torpedo bomber, when she was? I'd just clarify that the aircraft was carrying bombs at the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for Italian battleship Conte di Cavour, Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya, French battleship Suffren, and French battleship Mirabeau. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)