User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 40

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

Minor issue

Hey mate I just found out that the "Development and cancellation" section of the article L 20e α-class battleship uses a "British cancellation". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the same in AmEng ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see this looks the same as the word connexion or gaol both are still alowed as an alternative of connection or jail (both connexion and gaol are lesser used than their counterpart). Anyway I'll see you in the next nomination mate. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yup - and thanks for your frequent and thorough reviews :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome I just do my part here. Also someone is doing his homework. ;) Looks like you and Sturm are getting closer and closer to your big goal. Getting all the ships of the wikiproject Operation Majestic Titan a GA-class. But it also looks like the most terrible articles like you mentioned me in the beginning of the year are still there. Waiting until someone edits them with as goal making them FA-class. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You might have noticed this ;) The Richelieus are going to be even worse... Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I did. Well we've no choice to do them. ;) Of course if you want to reach your goal in 2020. You know they were/are waiting for you and Sturm so the time is now right. So good luck may be you will reach your goal in 2020. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup, we've put them off long enough. The real problem I'm going to have is once they're all done - what'll I do then? Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I reckon that only thing what I can tell is that we shall wait what the future says. Maybe the wikiproject could be expand with a new "sister wikiproject" with other kind of ships. You'd say "what'll I do then?" well you and Sturm also could work further with the other phases because we always talk about Phase I but there're still four other phase. Trust me those phases are waiting for awhile maybe that could be your new goal? I don't know we'll see what the future says. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Truth be told, the other phases don't interest me so much - I might work on some of the battle articles and do some more bios here and there, but I don't expect to actively pursue them the way I have with the ships. I've still got a lot of German warships to write/rewrite articles on, so that'll keep me busy for a while. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed for another 10 years probably. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Alabama (BB-60)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Alabama (BB-60) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Alabama (BB-60)

The article USS Alabama (BB-60) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Alabama (BB-60)

The article USS Alabama (BB-60) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60) 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) 23:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 Milhist contest

The Writer's Barnstar
For placing second in the April 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with 86 points from nine articles, I hereby award you this Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PM, I had a good run last month (and it helped that some of the usual suspects weren't as productive ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS North Carolina (BB-55)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS North Carolina (BB-55) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS North Carolina (BB-55)

The article USS North Carolina (BB-55) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS North Carolina (BB-55) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS North Carolina (BB-55)

The article USS North Carolina (BB-55) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS North Carolina (BB-55) 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, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS South Dakota (BB-57)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS South Dakota (BB-57) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Washington (BB-56)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Washington (BB-56) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS South Dakota (BB-57)

The article USS South Dakota (BB-57) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS South Dakota (BB-57) 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, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tennessee-class battleship

The article Tennessee-class battleship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tennessee-class battleship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible ACR noms

G'day Nate, just wondering if you would be willing to co-nom SMS Niobe for ACR. I know I have done bugger-all on developing the article, but I am trying to move the GT Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy towards FT, and it would help in that respect. No doubt it would also be an minor move towards getting Light cruisers of Germany towards FT. As an alternative or perhaps also in addition after that, I am also keen in progressing SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf as well. These two are the main non-primary Yugoslav ship articles I am interested in progressing. No biggie if you have bigger fish to fry/other priorities. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Amusingly, I was just looking at Niobe the other day, wondering if you had any interest in running it with me at some point. Sturm and I have been developing several articles together to build up a queue of co-noms we can run in addition to solo FACs, but there’s no reason we can’t work in side projects (like Sturm did with German torpedo boat Albatros a while back). Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
OK sounds good, I'm just going through Niobe making tweaks here and there in preparation, and noticed that where it says "According to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships" regarding the Yugoslav armament it is actually cited to Gröner. Should that be to Gardiner & Chesneau? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, I've tweaked the image licenses a bit, and finished going through doing minor things. Maybe check you're ok with my changes and I'll nominate it soonish if that's ok with you? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That all looks fine to me - one other thing I want to do is add a para to the design section that summarizes the context/design history of the class, which I've been doing for the last couple of years. I might have some time tonight to get it done, and then I think it'll be ready. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Let me know when you're happy, and I'll queue it up. My only current ACR nom is just about ready for promotion, and I'd like to get another one in the works. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The other one I'm interested in is Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, but maybe I should talk to Sturm about that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, there's one thing I want to do with the article: I've been adding a paragraph on the design history/context of the class to articles as they go through ACR/FAC as a result of a more recent FAC discussion, and I haven't gotten around to rewriting the Gazelle-class cruiser article yet for me to simply crib material from it. Dodson's The Kaiser's Battlefleet is my go-to source for this kind of thing lately, but I'm out of town this week so I won't have access to it until I get back Sunday afternoon (at the earliest). Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Strasbourg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French battleship Strasbourg 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Strasbourg

The article French battleship Strasbourg you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:French battleship Strasbourg for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

38 cm SK L/45

Hello Parsecboy, we have a differ about something to the range of the 38 cm SK. My sources are Schmalenbach from edition 1993, Koop/Schmolke (their books are not good) as soon as Siegfried Breyer Schlachtschiff und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970 and the Marine-Arsenal Bd. 29 "Die Schlachtsschiffe der Bayern-Klasse". I think, Friedman confused the rail gun with the ship's guns. MfG URTh (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No doubt he did - an increase of 4° shouldn't increase the range by that much - thanks for letting me know which edition of Schmalenbach you have. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
As note: Only the Koekelare-gun was modified for greater range with a larger chamber than a other 38 cm railway and ship guns. MfG URTh (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Strasbourg

The article French battleship Strasbourg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French battleship Strasbourg 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) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Washington (BB-56)

The article USS Washington (BB-56) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:USS Washington (BB-56) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 Milhist contest

The Writer's Barnstar
For placing second in the May 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with a brilliant 158 points from 24 articles, I hereby award you this Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the project. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dunkerque-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dunkerque-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dunkerque-class battleship

The article Dunkerque-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dunkerque-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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Question?

@Parsecboy: It’s my understanding that one nautical knot is equal to 1.15 land mph. Assuming this, why then do ship articles show mph exceeding knots?

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship: Speed: 17.5 knots (32.4 km/h; 20.1 mph)

What is interesting here is that if you multiply 17.5 knots X 1.15 it equals 20.1 mph? What am I missing? Thanks for your help. Pendright (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A nautical mile is 1.15 land miles, but that means in the time it takes to travel one nautical mile, you've traveled 1.15 land miles - that's why the mph conversion is higher. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The fog has lifted, thank you. Pendright (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Carnot picture

May I ask why have you changed the picture in the article for the French battleship carnot? Tombeer9 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you may - the previous photo was not properly licensed, so it was unusable. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

USS Utah BB-31 casualty changes verified by Naval History and Heritage Command

I have updated the death toll on the USS Utah page. The Naval History and Heritage Command has updated their on-line page to provide the correct numbers so the existing URL reference does not need to be changed. I'm updating the date of the reference to 6/26/2019.

At this point, I see no reason not to include the jpeg of the memorial plaque provided to me by the USS Utah Memorial Organization which lists all 58 officers and sailors who perished during the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - I put in a small image gallery with this photo of the plaque at the Utah State Capitol in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have a question and please don't take this the wrong way. I don't edit much. Respectfully, why do you (and others on other web pages) seem to "have control" and are the final arbiters of what can and can't be included on a Wiki page? I'd like to understand this because I'm in another discussion with someone who disagrees with my changes to the "Death Wish (1974)" film. My changes in that case were within the same kind of thought pattern about cast members not on the official cast credits in the movie, but the actor I added has a long history of working in NY and I saw no reason why they shouldn't be added. My edit was deemed "not related" to the movie, but the whole paragraph was about uncredited cast members and their work on other projects. So, why are my changes regarded as irrelevant whereas his opinion is the final say since he reverted my changes? This seems to be counter to the whole idea of the Wiki. Or what am I missing?

I can understand our discussion on the death toll since you were using the Naval History and Heritage Command website as "factual" even though it "disagreed" with 2 commemoration plaques (I wasn't aware of the one at the capitol building). However, it seem to me that should have at least required a notation that there was conflicting information on the death toll between the "official" information on the DANFS site and the 2 available plaques which were created using some kind of official list. Typically, you don't cast 2 plaques in bronze without having a verified list of names when they were produced. I'm glad I was able to get the source of the information to research and correct the error and bring this to a final conclusion.

I'm trying to understand how this process works, so your insight and commentary would be useful to me for future editing efforts that I will undertake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not so much that anyone has control over pages (though some act like it and that's another problem) - it's just common to revert a change you don't think is good - but as we saw in your and my encounter, having your change undone isn't the end of the story. In my experience, it's generally better to revert an edit without a source since that provides more motivation for the person who wants to add it to add a source - I don't want to see the articles I've spent hours and hours writing slowly degrade because someone doesn't bother to add sources, and if reverting them makes them do it, then that's what I'll do. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I understand you have a vested interest as a serious writer on the subject of naval histories. When I updated the article with the correct death toll, I also added a citation superscript in the upper body of the article where it first discusses the death toll. You edited my update and deleted that citation. It would seem to me that the citation should appear at the first mention of the death toll, but now it continues to reside only in the second mention of the death toll. How does deleting the upper citation degrade the article in any way? Why did you feel it needed to be deleted and only appear later in the article?

Also, the final sentence of that section "The wreck remains in the harbor, and in 1972, a memorial was erected near the ship." It states there is a memorial and the picture that started this whole discussion of the memorial plaque is available and I think that should be made part of the article since it is available. You have pictures of the actual site, so why not include the picture of the bronze memorial plaque? Also, the wreck is the grave of only 54 men since 4 bodies were recovered and interred. That is not included in the Salvage section and would be a fact that it's a war grave for 54 men.

I can see that you want accuracy, so I go back to one of my original comments. If there were 2 bronze plaques that were "most likely" created based on the official history of the Utah and created many years before Wiki even existed, why wouldn't you include the standard disclaimer I've seen in multiple other articles that when there is conflicting information, so add a specific notice added to the article so that readers will know that there is an issue with the item. Then when I got the official info that the plaques were correct from the Naval History and Heritage Command, this could have been changed to "The death toll has been confirmed to be 58 and we are awaiting the official update to the DANFS web site before updating this article."

So, I don't see how changes like these would damage the overall integrity of the article. Why do you think they will? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, the material in the introduction doesn't need a citation if the material is covered in the body of the article. I prefer to have things as trimmed as possible to avoid clutter and redundancy.
My perspective is, per the image policy on galleries, that substantially similar images shouldn't be used in galleries since they don't generally add to the readers' understanding of the topic, and two plaques that list the same names are similar enough that it would run afoul of the image policy. And since the memorial has two photos already, if we have to choose between another photo in the memorial or one at another location, I'd rather have a more diverse set of images.
It ultimately goes to what we can prove, and weighing sources against each other. DANFS is a reliable source and the plaques are not - think of it this way: who made the plaques? How do we know they're correct? When we evaluate sources, we think about editorial oversight, whether something's been peer reviewed, etc. There's none of that sort of information available to us about the plaques.
As for updating the article once NHHC got back to you but before they updated DANFS, here's what it comes down to: there's no guarantee that they would update DANFS - these sorts of things fall through the cracks all the time - and there's no rush to get things done, and I'd rather have the article accurately representing the source than not (think of it this way - say somebody reads this article and it says 58 deaths, but they then click the link to DANFS and it still has the old number. If that's "wrong", then how do they know the rest of the article is accurate?). Does that make sense? Parsecboy (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede the issue of the location of the citation based on your reference which talks about challenging a particular piece of information. Personally, I think that the citation should always be at the first instance, but that's my preference.

In terms of the death toll, I still disagree. If you blow up the plaque, you'll see that it was erected by the "Surviving Officers and Men of the USS Utah 1946.". Since this predates the original DANFS entry (6 Dec 2015 if I recall correctly) on the web page and was erected by the people who actually served on the ship, this should have been given great weight as to whether the DANFS entry was indeed correct. So, I stand by my original statement that a significant notation should have been made that the number in DANFS "may be questionable and needs further research due to a historical plaque at the Utah Capitol showing only 58 men perished" instead of posting it as fact. In fact, if I hadn't been in touch with the Utah Survivors organization who sent me a picture of the plaque from the actual Utah War Memorial and then researched it with Naval History and Heritage Command, this error would have continued to be perpetuated. I got involved because I watched a program on the Pearl Harbor Attack and it talked about the loss of the Utah, something I wasn't aware of at the time. Maybe if this had been noted, the error could have been corrected much earlier. Therefore, people who may feel that Wiki is indeed factual could have perpetuated this error into other media and writings since there was no warning of the discrepancy between the plaque and the DANFS data.

Yes, it's all moot now since the error has been corrected, but for the future, when there are conflicts in info, it should be properly noted and maybe someone will be intrigued enough to research the conflict and find the piece of documentation that provides a resolution.Aspenguy2 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, you are free to disagree, but that's not the way we do things on Wikipedia - I've been writing here for more than a decade, and in that time, have 70+ Featured Articles. Where there are reliable sources that conflict on a particular fact, we generally do present both, but again, a plaque is not a reliable source. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, again I disagree. People these days take Wikipedia articles as "fact" and I've found multiple instances of where the 58 and 64 figures have been used on multiple websites since they probably saw the plaques stating 58 and the Wiki article which stated 64. My assumption is that most people use Wikipedia to gather their "facts" and since this article used the erroneous number, it has been perpetuated. I even found an article on Huffpost which stated the 64 number unequivocally. I'm trying to contact all of these websites to find out where they got their numbers to see if my hypothesis is correct. So, you may not consider plaques to be a reliable source, but ignoring multiple plaques, all of which have the correct number of 58 and not investigating that the Navy possibly made a mistake in their posting perpetuated this error. If, as I have stated multiple times, a notation had been made about this discrepancy, it could have been corrected at an earlier date. I can understand your questioning some of the plaques, but I just don't understand your logic in ignoring the 1946 survivor plaque. Do you really think that the Utah survivors would have a bronze plaque cast with the 58 number as "unreliable"? This seems to insult the men that actually lived through the attack and created the plaque to honor their fellow shipmates. I expect they put a lot of thought and research before the final plaque was cast.

I just did a search on USS Utah Memorial Plaque and found a more complete picture of the plaque I had originally posted. It was at the bottom of the memorial with a groundbreaking date of 7 Dec 1971. So, again, a simple search found a plaque erected by the US Navy nearly 48 years ago. I expect that the US Navy would only erect a plaque with 58 names if they had their facts correct.

https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+utah+memorial+plaque&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=8uMYdAp2HYv8aM%253A%252CMIicYvaMOmJhBM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRgUCbXB2h6HRggeQKDyWko0mrU-Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8uLrP85PjAhWw11kKHdiuCmcQ9QEwAXoECAIQBg&biw=1536&bih=701#imgdii=EkJn52bQo3yxCM:&imgrc=8uMYdAp2HYv8aM:&vet=1

So, in this instance, a plaque seems to be a reliable source since it was erected by a reliable source, namely the US Navy.Aspenguy2 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We're talking past each other at this point - you're not using "source" in the way that Wikipedia (or academics) use the term. What it comes down to is, a plaque is not a source. You may not like this, and the outcome may have been incorrect for some time, but these are the rules Wikipedia operates under (and much the same in academia). A professional historian is not going to cite facts from a plaque and assume they're right. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're also ignoring my viewpoint. I agree that citing a plaque as an "authoritative source" is insufficient, I already conceded that you were right about that. My point was that the existence of 2 plaques which pre-dated on-line references was enough to call into question whether the 64 number was correct. I believe that if an academic saw these 2 plaques (especially one from the US Navy) which contradicts a single written history source where it stated that the number was 64 instead of the 58 listed on the plaque they would have done additional research. A good academic would then have noted that the 64 number needed additional verification from the "authoritative" source before it was accepted as fact. I contacted the "authoritative" source you used and asked them to verify their number given the existence of the plaques. There are many examples in history where this has happened and by not noting the discrepancy, it becomes an accepted fact simply because it's been repeated so many times. You accepted this as fact based on the reference you used and didn't think to question whether the "authoritative" source might be in error. You had the picture of the capitol plaque which stated the 58 number and never made the effort to find out why there was a discrepancy with the source you were using. Doesn't this shows a lack of academic rigor you imply you are using when writing the entries?Aspenguy2 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your viewpoint, I'm discounting it because it's wrong. We don't do original research on Wikipedia; if there are no reliable, secondary sources that dispute a given fact, then we aren't to do our own research based on primary material (which is what the plaques are). Put another way, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Is there the possibility of incorporating errors? Sure. But that possibility is always present, and what you suggest doesn't solve that fundamental problem. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to find a way to include a section on the Utah Memorial Organization - http://www.ussutah1941.org/home.html as part of the article. They have a significant amount of additional photographs and other information which should be made accessible by a discussion in the Wiki entry. How can we add this?Aspenguy2 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Since I didn't receive any negative feedback on my suggested edit, I've added a single sentence in the Memorial section to allow readers to go directly the Survivor Organization website.Aspenguy2 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not really what an encyclopedia is for, so I removed it - and there already is a link to the site in the external links section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I also added a sentence about visiting the Memorial since it's basically not accessible unless you're military or have an escort.

I see you added a citation for my sentence, thanks.Aspenguy2 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I've been Googling the Internet about the Utah and there are sure a lot of places that reference the death toll. Most of them state their is a discrepancy between 64 and 58. I've been emailing them to request they correct their website or article to get the correct info out there into the ether.Aspenguy2 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm making some progress on correcting websites now that the death toll is "verified". https://www.nps.gov/valr/learn/historyculture/battleship-row.htm was using the "64" figure and on July 2, 2019, they corrected the figure to 58, so I'm making some progress.Aspenguy2 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

USS North Carolina

Do what you like. You're clearly in charge, and frankly, I don't give enough of a damn. Just make sure you change all of the other articles with these on if you think they should be removed. Because it should be all or none, not "the one that I've just noticed" Hammersfan (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "the one that I've just noticed", it's "the one I spent several days writing and would prefer not to see it trashed" - some of us are trying to produce professional content here, and ribbon racks like that are, frankly, amateurish trash. I'm under no obligation to do anything - this is a volunteer project, remember? Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:SMS Arcona NH 65764.tiff

My plan, if you're okay with this, is to revert this to the uncropped version (as that's what I'm doing the restoration from) once the restoration is far enough along to replace all current usages. As you can see at File:SMS_Arcona_NH_65764_-_Restoration.png, I've nearly finished removing the text, but I feel that I should at least remove all the text before uploading a JPEG and replacing usage. It's a fine image. I'm sure I'll get an FP out of it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 02:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, progress went faster than I thought.
  • Before
    Before
  • After
    After

Still a ways to go, but ready for articles, especially relative to the original. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, that looks much better - it's funny, I never looked at the original closely enough to see all of the damage to it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I meant to ask: is there a reason it's on here, not Commons? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, presumably it's a German photo, and since we don't know the creator, we don't know the status in the country of origin. I suppose it's also possible it was originally published in Japan, but again, we don't know for certain. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. It WAS taken in Japan, and the ship was there a long time. I'll see if Commons thinks we can treat it as Japanese. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I would guess Japanese publication is unlikely, since it's from the Farenholt collection - I don't know who Farenholt was or what their connection to the photograph is, but there are a number of other photos from the collection that were taken in Germany. There was an Admiral Ammen Farenholt in the US Navy active during the period and he donated images of US ships to the NHHC (see here, for instance) and there's a strong possibility that it's the same individual. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Farenholt was American, so if he took them, they're pre-1924 and out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a case to be made that they'd be PD-USGov-Navy, since he was an active officer at the time, though we don't know for sure that he took the photos - he might merely have assembled a collection of prints. And, for example, he wouldn't have still been in the Navy to take File:Spanish battleship Espana (ex-Alfonso XIII).jpg in 1932.
The case of Robert W. Neeser comes to mind - he was a Navy attache sent to France during World War I who amassed a fairly large collection of prints of (mostly) French warships, presumably for recognition purposes. Those are definitively PD in the US, since either he took them himself or they were commercially available (and thus, at very least, would be PD-US-1923-abroad).
In any event, I wonder if there's anyone at NHHC who could give us a clearer answer. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Umm, doesn't the NHHC page state that all images in the public domain? That should be enough to get it onto Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As I see it, either he took it - Pre-1924, so out of copyright in the US - or he bought it in Japan - PD in Japan as photos only were in copyright for 10 years before 1953. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, if he took it, it'd be {{PD-USGov-Navy}} since he'd have been there while on active service. I went digging around NHHC and it might be the wrong Farenholt - per this and this, we might be looking at a photo from Oscar's second album. But it seems that even the NHHC can't keep the two straight (note the title of the second is Ammen Farenholt, but the description is of Oscar's albums - and they haven't bothered to try on most of the image description pages I've seen). Oscar retired in 1901, but they were both in service in the 1890s, so the period of overlap makes it difficult to determine whose photos are whose. If they're Oscar's, then they were likely commercially available either in China or Japan by the 1890s at the latest, in which case they'd be PD-Japan or PD-China in addition to being PD-US-1923-abroad. Ammen appears to have retired in 1932, but even if he'd have acquired the photos commercially at the very end of his career (which is unlikely), they'd still be PD-Japan or PD-China by a wide margin. His stuff from Germany is another matter, but that's less relevant here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting - according to this, Oscar was Ammen's father (which isn't surprising); the latter retired in 1936. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
In any case, it's definitely out of copyright, if it ever had one. Which is always nice. I like unambiguous cases. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to be the case. I suppose there's a possibility that it was taken by a crewman from another of the German ships of the squadron who published in Germany after returning home, but that's probably vanishingly unlikely. As far as I'm aware, when Arcona was in Japanese waters in 1897, she was alone. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, it's done, and nominated at FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 02:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Pasecboy, I'm sorry for being rude to you yesterday. Hindbærbrus (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's no big deal - we all get frustrated from time to time (as did I - I'm sorry for that). No hard feelings. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 3 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 25 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, congratulations for your WikiChevrons. Thank you for your help in 25 reviews between those months and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks CPA, both for the kind words and for your own hard work reviewing articles :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Parsecboy, I couldn't believe myself after I got my WikiChevrons yesterday. I reviewed 64 reviews which are insane a lot I didn't know reviewed so much. I also hope you had a great Fourth of July. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, Sturm and I do our best to keep you busy with OMT articles ;) We had a great day - took the kids and their cousin to a pool, grilled for dinner, and did some light fireworks (sparklers and the like). Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, you see, Sturm convinced me to make and/or explain my own ship articles. He told me that you and Sturm have hard times to find some Dutch sources for some Dutch ships. So I decided to step herein. For now, I do not have the sources but I'm working on it. The problem here is that I'll go on holiday on 8 July until the 17th. So I'll buy some books after my holiday. The Dutch books are in our local book website really cheap if you are comparing to some other warships' books on Amazon. They're also really close so I don't have to wait that long until they ship it. So I can be your Dutch translator if you guys want to. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That'd be excellent - apart from a couple of articles that Ed did on a pair of battleship and battlecruiser proposals, coverage of Dutch ships is pretty thin. The Netherlands doesn't even have a section in the Warship GA list (whereas, Yugoslavia, for instance, is pretty well developed given its relative obscurity thanks to the efforts of Peacemaker). It'd be nice to build up coverage of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Give them some time. Due holidays and lack of sources, it'd be possible that I'd start nominating their first Dutch GAN in September. Maybe even end August or so, who knows? I'd probably start with the WWII ship Jacob van Heemskerck. She has no citations but the article left a Dutch book behind so If I'll buy it and get more information about her than I can expand it. There are also some Dutch websites who have information about the ship. I am sadly not sure or they're reliable because they're mostly connected to each other. They also use some books as their sources but still, I'm not sure. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That'd definitely be doable. The WWII ships would probably be the easiest to start (and for me, among the most interesting ones) - HNLMS De Ruyter (1935), HNLMS Java (1921), and HNLMS Sumatra (1920) all come to mind. I'm sure Sturm and I would both be happy to help with sources where we can (I have access to a major university library network, so if there's a book in the US you need, I can probably get it). As for the websites, it's hard to say without looking at them, but my general sense is, if you're just going to take the articles to GA, they should probably be fine, but above that, probably not (unless they're published by experts, which is sometimes the case). Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes they're the easiest to start with. That's a sweet offer you make. I'd love to collaborate with editors like you and Sturm. Sturm already offered me some sources (with Conways series and a book written by a Dutch historian where I can get my Dutch sources). My apologies for not answering your comments. we first drove more than 1,300 km to get there which was really annoying. After we arrived we had no WIFI and the first days we only got electricity and water at night time (after 4 pm). They were working on the electricity at the time and water was connected and only works if there is electricity. But we had a great time we went to the mountains in the southern part of the country, visited some family members we barely see (only once a year sometimes twice), celebrated and had a bbq with family members (because of my mum's cousin would get married in end July he was the first time back after he went to the US for a better life 20 years ago, now he has two children which we never knew they existed and were born in the US. Sadly we couldn't be at the marriage even we were invited) and went to biggest amusement park of the country after that I couldn't hear the word energy anymore. ;p, Of course, we had to go another 1,300 km to getting home, well I just arrived. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries - I was out of the loop for a few days on a trip too! Though we only had to drive about 4 hours - 1,300km one way doesn't sound like a lot of fun. And tell me you rode Hyperion ;) My older daughter is just tall enough to ride most of the roller coasters at the amusement park nearby, though she's only 6 so we're starting slow - the biggest one I've gotten her on is this one. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
With you working the Dutch ships, we could probably put together a good topic on the Battle of Java Sea and the related battles as Exeter and a couple of British destroyers are already GA, IIRC. Not in the near future, of course, but we could do it in a year or so if we're content to mostly stay at GA without adversely affecting OMT's progress.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd definitely be doable, though the trouble will as always be the biographies of the commanders, especially the more obscure American and Japanese ones. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I've mostly written off the chances of getting most commander's bios and unit histories up to GA. The Battle of Coronel GT awaits my improvements in the battle article itself, but I was fortunate to find a detailed biography of Craddock to match the GA article on von Spee. I'm doubtful that I'll be able to do much with Doveton and expect that I'll have to drop the commanders from that GT once I'm read to tackle that one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the only luck I've had is with German admirals (and again, it's thanks to Hildebrand, but his volume on German admirals, which has allowed me to put together decent GAs like Alexander von Monts) - I suspect Tanaka should be doable, but I'm sure Aritomo Gotō of Cape Esperance will be a fool's errand. We may have to reformat them with an OrBat list as the topic main article, as I'm sure reviewers at GTC will want the commander bios included. Sturdee actually isn't in too bad a shape - I don't think it'd need much work to get to GA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a book on Japanese admirals in English at the Library of Congress, but it was pretty much just a listing of their duty appointments, IIRC. I think Nishida was the author.
About the GTs, you mean reframe them to be "OB of Battle X" with just the battle and the ship articles? That seems kinda silly as I'm not sure that I really see a whole lot of value in an OB list. As a daughter article, sure, but not as the capstone of a GT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to see if I can track it down - are we talking about Nishida Hiroshi? I see his website on the IJN, but have so far come up empty on a book by him.
That seems like him, but a quick search didn't find anything either. I know where the book is; I'll have to try and remember to copy it next time I go there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No, there generally isn't a lot of value to OrBat lists for most actions (the one for Jutland comes to mind as an exception) - I was mostly thinking of ways to justify excluding the commanders ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Might be we could get by without them, but we should probably ask. I'll be annoyed if they want the commanders 'cause there are a whole lot of relatively minor surface actions that I think are worth a GT where the commanders aren't actually notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Someone here, made this conversation a plan what-to-do after all the OMT articles are at least GA-class. ;) Happy to see you again Sturm. No, we didn't go to the Hyperion because of fear and long queues of people. My little sister is just 12 years old and she's barely tall enough to go on those kinda roller coaster (even she want to). Without her, it's not funny. Yes, 1,300 km wasn't fun, you were really lucky to not have to drive that long. We do that every year to visit our family. There are many and many Japanese and American admirals. I hope one day they would be at least GA-class too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There probably is enough info in Japanese, but that might as well be in Linear B as far as I'm concerned. I figure that there's always Operation Medium Giants for cruisers and Operation Tincan for destroyers if we don't want to refocus on battles and biographies ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably, btw Sturm do you know how many articles would the Battle of Java Sea good topic has? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 32 ships, plus the battle article. We might be able to squeeze a couple of commander articles in as well, but probably not all of them. It's a big one, but there's absolutely no rush to get it done. And there are plenty of other potential GTs in the Dutch East Indies Campaign that would be smaller if we decide to start with them instead. A Dutch university press recently translated the relevant volume of the Japanese official history into English, which I have, so that should be damn useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and if we start with some of the smaller topics, most or all of those ships will reappear in the Java Sea topic - for instance, HMS Exeter was at First and Second Java Sea (and, coincidentally, Exeter is already a GA), USS Houston was at First Java and Sunda Strait, and it was Kurita's and Takagi's cruiser squadrons wrecking everyone's day in most of the battles during the campaign. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Very true. There's also the potential to link all of the naval battles into a supersized GT with a capstone article Naval Battles of the Dutch East Indies Campaign or some such that relates the naval actions to each other and in context of the overall campaign. I've just ordered a couple of books on Australian ships from Inter-Library Loan so that'll take care of Perth and any of the other Australian cruisers. The nice thing is that these sorts of projects have knock-on effects on other possible GTs. I did Exeter because I'd done her sister York back when I was doing the alphabet with RN ships and it was pretty easy to do her with York already done. And I figured that it might be useful if I ever wanted to do a GT covering the Battle of the River Plate and any other actions that she might have been involved in. In Perth's case, she participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan so that's another step to finishing that potential GT along with the Italian heavy cruisers that Parsec's already done and with my British carriers and DDs. So really, if we can get used to writing battle articles, which are a whole 'nother kettle of fish from ship articles, we've got a real tool at our disposal for motivating ourselves to work on these articles. And that's one of the real keys with these sustaining these sorts of big projects, keeping yourself motivated. Forex, I began my British DD project about a decade ago and made a lot of rapid progress knocking off the low-hanging fruit and then kinda burnt out. I've only done a few in the last couple of years, despite only needing a dozen or two to complete it, as they're the ones that need the most work, like the couple of E-class DDs that escorted Exeter in these battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, building the motivation to tackle the tough articles is the biggest hurdle - you and I wrote most of the French BB articles back in 2012 or so, and it's taken until now for me to get to the Richelieus (and the 2+ weeks it took me to just get Richelieu done is testament to why I avoided it for so long). The other thing is, once we get a couple of articles done on ships present in a given battle (i.e., one from each side), it'll provide a lot of the boilerplate text for the rest, with the only real work being the specifics on each ship's individual actions. Once I got a Jutland writeup for one German battleship, it was much easier to do the rest. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Eggactly. I wrote Barham several years ago to get the 5th Battle Squadron's maneuvers during Jutland down so I could use it for her sisters in the same squadron. Now if they weren't so bleeping busy during WW2, I'd have done them a long time ago, but at least that part's effectively already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS West Virginia (BB-48)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS West Virginia (BB-48)

The article USS West Virginia (BB-48) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:USS West Virginia (BB-48) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day Nate, I've chased this message up with Legobot. Not sure what is going on there... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, who knows - I've seen it do this before, and I've never been able to figure out why. It might be because the bot read the failed GA1, not the GA2 we just did, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it do it to new articles too. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Two sections with the same heading is generally asking for trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth L. Gardner

On 12 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth L. Gardner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth L. Gardner served as a WASP during World War II and was the subject of an iconic photo (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth L. Gardner), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Campaign consistency

See what you started? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign. Some of your fellows are a bit resentful. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ships

Any ship photos or illustrations you'd particularly like restored? Ideally, a fallback might be a good idea: Sometimes images get annoying faster than I'd like.

Oh, um. Something not TOO damaged. I lost several hours of work to GIMP crashing mid-save and thus eating my save file on an image recently, so I really want a few successes before I do something big again. SMS Arcona level is fine, or Russian Fleet, or something like that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been working on a lot of French ships lately, so something like File:Justice 1909 LOC det 4a16114.jpg would be nice. There are others in that series, like File:Vérité Hudson River 1909 LOC 4a16112v.jpg, File:Liberte French Battleship LOC 04282u.jpg, and File:Italian cruiser Etna Hudson 1909 LOC 4a16124v.jpg, among some others I think. How do those look? Parsecboy (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably start with Justice. Liberté has a lot of... bloom to the sky, that looks a bit of a nightmare to fix, and the Etna Hudson is a huge file, which does seem to increase the chances of a GIMP program crash. We don't seem to have the full resolution on Verité, but given it's 158 megabytes, I'm guessing massive. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wait, there's a new scan for Justice. Well, I'll give it a try, but if GIMP crashes on me, I might wait a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Finished Arcona to start off. Justice'll probably be my next ship. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 06:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, hopefully GIMP will hold up for you ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are some other options, mostly from the same series of photos from the Hudson-Fulton Celebration: File:SMS Dresden German Cruiser LOC 16727.jpg and File:SMS Dresden 1909 LOC det 4a16116.jpg (and SMS Dresden (1907) is already an FA), File:SMS Victoria Luise LOC det.4a19530.jpg and File:S.M. Uebungsgeschwader Victoria Louise & Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm & Weissenburg.jpg (the latter being another of your old friend Hugo Graf), File:SMS Hertha 1 1909.jpg and File:Herta German Cruiser LOC 04284.jpg of SMS Hertha, File:SMS Bremen LOC ggbain 09545.jpg, File:SMS Bremen 1907.jpg, and File:SMS Bremen LOC hec 01142a.jpg of SMS Bremen, and File:SMS Stettin 1912 LOC hec 01151.jpg of SMS Stettin. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Richelieu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French battleship Richelieu 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) 21:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Information

Is there a reason why you keep deleting Information I add to weapons I recently edited. I understand that I would need sources on the info, however I would like yourself to specify why, as I am confident the information is not wrong.73.183.159.192 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As you yourself say, you need a source - for instance, what's the basis for you assertion that the Winchester 1895 left military service in 1945? Also, there's an IP-hopping editor who disruptively adds the same sort of material (see for instance, here), and it wasn't clear to me when I saw your edits that you weren't the same individual. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Co-ordinators' election

Hey BB I got a message from Tom and he asked me a really hard question. He asked me or I'd like to be a candidate in the coming elections. But I'm not sure. Could you please explain to me more about the co-ordinators? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot to it, really - the biggest single responsibility is closing A-class reviews, but that's a very automated task these days. There's the monthly article writing contest that needs usually a few people to verify submissions and hand out awards. There are sometimes drives for specific projects (like tagging and assessing articles, or we had a collaboration with WP:WPWIR last year) that need to have some basic coordination (like setting up the drive pages, tracking the participants' standings, etc.). You would definitely be welcome, especially considering how dedicated you've been with doing reviews at A-class and FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sadly we've to wait until the election. Most co-ordinators have nominated some A and FA-classes, my perspective is that a person who made some A or FA-classes has a higher chance to get voted than someone who hasn't. Look at people like you who are re-elected for at least 5 years. And yes maybe you, Tom, Sturm and probably PM too, love to have me in the team because I reviewed like 64 articles in the last few months and from January 'till March I only had more than 20. And I'd love to collaborate with you guys in the near future. I'm just a little bit scared I won't make it. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you think Sturm would have another term? CPA-5 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • He hasn't said on the coord election page whether he's standing again or not, but I'd assume so. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah I give it a try I'd say I'll be a candidate in the next election. If I loss (can always happen) then maybe next year another try. How many people can become co-ordinators? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Usually it's 10, unless there's a tie for the 10th spot (I think). I say go for it, you're around the project a lot and I'd think you have a decent shot. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We'll see in the election. You'd be probably my opponent. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So you're telling me I need to convince you not to run? Darn it! Parsecboy (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yess, you just failed your job here. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think Sturm wants to be re-elected, so there is a place free for me. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see he hasn't indicated whether he's running or not - either way, good luck! Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's what my mum also said, before I went to the exam centre for my practice driving exam today. I passed so now I got my driving licence which couldn't destroy or damage my day anymore. I'm soo proud to get my driving licence. It was a hard exam (well in Belgium it is), but good luck to you too. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! It's always a huge relief to have a big exam like that under your belt - I've spent the last couple of years getting additional licenses at work, and each one was a huge weight lifted.
  • I followed your lead with SMS Brandenburg and have started going through my old FAs to bring them up to snuff - a lot of ".0"s to get rid of ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks PB, one of our local news cites told me that only 21,5 per cent pass the theory exam at their first time (I passed at my first try on 13 March 2018). While only 24 per cent pass at the practice exam at their first time (I also passed this one for my first time) and more than 64 (at theory) and 53,6 (at practice) per cent needed more than three exams which insane a lot. But I am happy to pass in both exams for my first time. Is it in the US different than in Europe? BTW because I had an exam coming I was so busy with practising my driving skills that I hadn't really time to have reviews in the old FA-classes, sorry. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I've never looked up the pass rates in the US, but I'd guess there's variations between different states. In my state, there's a written test and then a practical exam that involves road driving and a maneuverability test (which tests your ability to parallel park). Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I see, we've six different official manoeuvres. Like left and right parallel parking, turning back, drive backwards in a 20-metre way and parking spaces backwards and forwards. You need to do two of them for passing it. I had the backwards driving in 20 metres and forwards parking spaces. My instructor told me that my examiner took me to one of the busiest roads in whole the region. Why? No idea, maybe he thought I drove really good and he wants to test me on those busy roads and intersections or he just wants to bully me :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the parallel parking test we did was to both sides as well. I don't remember the specifics of the road test, but that was more than 15 years ago! Either way, you did well on the busy road, so that's something to be happy about. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again mate, BTW just curious, but how long was your practice exam? Mine was an hour (40 min. or so on the road and 20 min on other tests). I am always interested in different laws/cultures and even languages and religions in different countries. I don't why its one of my main interests, I also wish to learn Polish then I can communicate with them, now I have to do that in English. But hey I'm young a whole world is open to me that's also the really weird part in the US if you want to drive you to have to be at least 14 years and 3 months to 17 years depending by the state in most of Europe it is from the age of 18 years (Belgium 17 years and 9 months). This is why the difference between Americans and Europeans on the road is so high. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't remember how long it was - I looked up what the requirements are now, and they seem fairly similar to what I remember - there's a written test you take before you can get your learner's permit (which allows you to drive at age 15 1/2 with a parent in the car), then you have to log 50 hours of driving, 10 of which are at night, and then you take the driving test. It doesn't say how long it is, unfortunately. And I've got a while before my kids are old enough to start ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What!!! So fast!!! After you got your learner's permit here you have to wait for like 9 months before you can take part in the exam!!! Not long ago you just had to wait 3 months but they changed it same with the theory. There'd be 50 questions all of those need to be answered, as a real exam if you answered wrong then you'd lose a point. There are also big wrong answers if you answered that answer then five you'd lose five points instead of one this. This is a nex rule since June 2017. You have to get at least 41/50, two big wrong answers can ruin your whole exam. Also before you take part in the exam you should have been part of 12 hours lessons by a driving school. That's why there are many people who need a second or even a third exam before they pass the theory alone. After the theory exam, you have two options. You could choose to have ten lessons (20 hours) by the driving school and if they think you're ready then you can drive alone and take two people who both have a driving licence which is older than 7 years. Or you can choose to take your parents (who have an at least seven-year-old driving licence) but since February 2018 (just one month before I passed the theory). The government passed a bill which says "every person who has an at least 7-year-old driving licence have to follow a 3-hour lesson by the driving school". After 9 months you finally can take part in the practice exam. Also since last year, they passed another bill which states that every driver who passed the practice exam should come back to the driving school for one last lesson. In total this can cost at least €235 ($260) to more than €1,595 ($1,765) and this is all if you pass both exams in your first time. I'm so surprised how fast you can get your driving licence in your state. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, there's a six-month waiting period between when you can get your permit and when you can take the tests, though if you get your permit after you're 16, the only thing that will slow you down is needing to get the 50 hours of driving time.
  • Amusingly, since I've been going through and making fixes to old FAs, I noticed I had failed to mention the displacement at all in a couple of articles (like this one) and nobody caught it at ACR/FAC - though that was before you came along to catch mistakes like that ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh interesting, anyway back to the business we'll probably continue later on. Also, could you do me a favour, please? the ARC of Hatsuse is almost finally done we only need an image review. My question is could you please have an image review in the nomination? If you don't want it then I'll ask it to Niki for it. I'm not an expert in images (especially for A- or FA-classes) maybe I will become one in the coming years but for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I can take a look - I actually had a tab open for the ACR page to see what I could review, but then I got distracted trying to beat the old German battlecruiser articles into better shape. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Understandable most FA-class articles who are older than 5 years need a here and their little updates to standardise the newer articles. BTW I claimed my seat on your SMS Preussischer Adler GAN. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of that goes to the fact that standards have risen in that time, and especially so for the FAs that are 10 years old or more. Sturm and I basically developed the standards for what warship FAs should look like, of course incorporating input from various reviewers over the years. And that evolutionary process has led to rolling changes in how we write articles, whether it's a big thing, or minor details that we just weren't paying attention to - the ".0"s and "[x] ft 0 in" things, for instance, that then need to be fixed across all of the older articles. Thanks for taking on that review, by the way :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe it something bad to use the "ft 0 in" or ".0" in a unit. It's only I am a Dutch speaker and we do not use those systems. I know it is allowed to use it in English especially for English units usage. But that's why I asked at the start of my MILHIST career "Is it necessary to use the extra nought?". Most editors said "No it's not" at that time it was strange to look at for me. But hey you learn every day more. Since then I ask it in every nomination "Is it possible to round the nought?". Also you're welcome, mate. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And the election did just start, already put myself in it. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And the war has started. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy 21st July

Happy 21st July cannot wait for the firework have a nice day. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you had a great day! Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Richelieu

The article French battleship Richelieu you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:French battleship Richelieu for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Richelieu

The article French battleship Richelieu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French battleship Richelieu 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) 21:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Jean Bart (1940)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French battleship Jean Bart (1940) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 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 SMS Friedrich Carl, Normandie-class battleship, HMS Ramillies (07), SMS Nymphe (1863), and Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Royal Sardinian Navy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Sardinian Navy 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) 04:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battleship Jean Bart (1940)

The article French battleship Jean Bart (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French battleship Jean Bart (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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richelieu-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richelieu-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richelieu-class battleship

The article Richelieu-class battleship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Richelieu-class battleship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richelieu-class battleship

The article Richelieu-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richelieu-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) 01:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Sardinian Navy

The article Royal Sardinian Navy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Sardinian Navy 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) 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Helena (CL-50)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Helena (CL-50) 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) 19:20, 18 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 PB I started to clean-up here and there old FA-class's ships of Sturm and I wondered "maybe I could clean-up PB's old FA-class's ships too if he wants to?" so do you mind if I clean-up your old ships? I just finished cleaning-up Sturm's HMS Lion (1910) and his HMAS Australia (1911). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead - I thought I had replied last week but apparently I forgot to hit save! Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Mexico-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Mexico-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alsace-class battleship

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alsace-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Helena (CL-50)

The article USS Helena (CL-50) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Helena (CL-50) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Helena (CL-50)

The article USS Helena (CL-50) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Helena (CL-50) 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) 20:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributions

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that you contributions are very much appreciated. I love reading about naval history and ships in particular, and I always enjoy reading your work. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It's always nice to hear that someone enjoys my writing :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alsace-class battleship

The article Alsace-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alsace-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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Mexico-class battleship

The article New Mexico-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Mexico-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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 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)

Your GA nomination of SMS Nix

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Nix 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) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Salamander (1850)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Salamander (1850) 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) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 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 August 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest with 108 points from 11 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kges, I had a pretty good month ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Nix

The article SMS Nix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Nix 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) 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hildebrand and SMS S13 (1911)

I don't suppose Hildebrand et al's Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe has anything to say about what S13 was doing in between commissioning and the outbreak of the First World War? I can't find any sign in the 1913 or 1914 German navy lists, which suggests that S13 wasn't in any of the normal torpedo boat flotillas.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this - I'll check it later today. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish:, I looked the other day (and then forgot to post here) - Hildebrand et. al. don't cover most of the torpedo boats (and in fact, the only ones they do have sections on are the ones like S141/Blitz that saw some other use after the war). Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking anyway. I suppose that the same applies for other Flotilla-type ships such as Minesweepers.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nix-class aviso

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nix-class aviso you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Grille

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Grille 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) 07:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Salamander (1850)

The article SMS Salamander (1850) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Salamander (1850) 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) 10:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Preussischer Adler

The article SMS Preussischer Adler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Preussischer Adler for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 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 Lyon-class battleship, List of battleships of Japan, SMS Medusa (1864), List of battleships of France, and Brandenburg-class battleship. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Nix-class aviso

The article Nix-class aviso you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nix-class aviso for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-ordinator candidate

Just wondering or you forgot to add your name in the "candidate" section? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I did forget - I apparently missed the election message on the 1st. Thanks for the reminder! Parsecboy (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah I see. That's why I'd like to ask it to you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW, I reviewed your list about Japanese ships two weeks ago. Just a reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder - it must have fallen off of Sturm's and my watchlists. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Grille

The article SMS Grille you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Grille 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) 09:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Loreley (1859)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Loreley (1859) 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) 11:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke (1865)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Falke (1865) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke (1865)

The article SMS Falke (1865) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Falke (1865) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Loreley (1859)

The article SMS Loreley (1859) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Loreley (1859) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke (1865)

The article SMS Falke (1865) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Falke (1865) 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) 09:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Pommerania

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Pommerania 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) 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Loreley (1859)

The article SMS Loreley (1859) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Loreley (1859) 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) 08:22, 14 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)

Your GA nomination of SMS Pommerania

The article SMS Pommerania you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Pommerania for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 SMS Pommerania

The article SMS Pommerania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Pommerania 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) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive_40"