My TalkArchives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Guess it's time to fill it back up? –♠Vami_IV†♠22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, make it so, Number Two!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJapanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleBréguet 960 Vultur you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Bréguet 960 Vultur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between October and December 2020.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for placing first in the December 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest with 93 points from 10 articles. Congratulations,Zawed (talk)06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a grand total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. An incredible output and an amazing effort. Congratulations!Zawed (talk)06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello buddy, I left a reply to you onTalk:Gozo Phoenician shipwreck. Can you please review it? Thank you~ Elias Z. (talkallam)08:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comments from 8 January?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, you reservedTalk:Battle of Rethymno/GA1 nearly four weeks ago. Any idea when its number might come up? Cheers.Gog the Mild (talk)22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSNCASO Trident you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:SNCASO Trident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofHog Farm --Hog Farm (talk)22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel, I thought it was interesting that you removed the edit that "All woodwork on the USS Dictator was done by Ariel Patterson. You said it was trivial. However, I think it is not trivial because Ariel Patterson was a shipbuilder and had his onw sawmill giving him the reputation for his work as a shipbuilder and wood provider. Patterson and John Ericsson worked together on the steamerEricson as well as theDictator. Perhaps you just need a little more information to incorporate it into the article. --Greg Henderson (talk)01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but generally subcontractors aren't discussed in ship articles as they're far too numerous to be mentioned in the sources. At any rate, infoboxes are a supposed to be summary of the important facts about a ship, if you have sources supporting your addition, feel free to add them to the construction part of the main body. If you don't have any reliable sources, please don't bother.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forFrancesco Caracciolo-class battleship, about "an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forHMS Princess Royal (1911)! - DYK thatmy song of defiance which you had the courage to review, finally made it to GA but wasn't on DYK for Bach's birthday yesterday? - We miss Yoninah so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your adding the MILHIST tag - I'm not sure it fits, since it was only intended for civil use? -The Bushranger_{One ping only}20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens to the worst of us. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this that I'm not going to change it, I just wanted to explain why I thought "entered into" was better. The rest of the sentence describes things that people did to the ship (or things that happened to the ship): it was built, launched, commissioned, etc. It wouldn't make sense to say "it was entered service", but "it was entered into service" reads fine. I suppose it's minor... it's just how I read the sentence.HarryKernow(talk)22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being old-fashioned, my thinking was that it assigned agency to the ship itself, which is always a problem when writing a ship-focused article. Best to try and minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. I didn't fully expand on my first thought, but I was under the impression that just "was ... entered"? assigned agency to the ship, while "was entered into" doesn't.HarryKernow(talk)04:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in theJanuary 2021Military History Article Writing Contest with37 points from4 articles. Congratulations,Zawed (talk)08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removingrefbegin/refend markup from bibliographies and other"lists of works", and please reinstate those you have already removed.I understand you feel the use of this template is deleterious to those with poor eyesight, but that would be a fault with the template itself, not the usage of the template. Addressing any fault there should also improve the readability of the automatically generated references generated by reflist.Stgpcm (talk)02:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What virtue does the template have other than to shrink the size of the text and to set the number or width of columns? And that last usually doesn't work on my large monitor, so what value does it have?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a large monitor, and it works just fine (and looksmuch better than without it). -The Bushranger_{One ping only}02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a bit of a puzzle for me as to why mine sometimes displays it and sometimes doesn't. I wish it worked more consistently on reflist as I'm always bothered by all the additional whitespace that is usually present with my short citation format. I'd be content if both reflist and refbegin didn't change the text size at all, but am a bit of a loss on how to push for that change to be adopted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary virtue of using refbegin is to mark the section as a list of works. Its secondary virtue is to display such lists in a consistent style. A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described atTemplate:Reflist#Font_size.

The automatic decision on whether to use multiple columns is - bizarrely - based in the number of entries in the list (20 or more).

On Skylon (spacecraft) the columns option should probably be set, to prevent a mismatch between the references and bibliography, but visual format isn't my thing.Stgpcm (talk)10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple header of Bibliography, Sources, etc., which is required byMOS:APPENDIX, is a far more effective way to show the transition to a different section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described atTemplate:Reflist#Font_size." This sop to satisfy the requirements ofWikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY doesn't actually work on some browsers, unfortunately. But since the check box exists, no one seems to cares that it might not work for the readers who need it. I guess Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY is only there for people with disabilities who can afford the right computer for the options to work? The rest of us with bad eyes can suck it.BilCat (talk)01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your efforts on behalf of visually deficient readers such as myself. Your efforts are much appreciated, and perhaps someday will yield fruit. Thanks again.BilCat (talk)02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? You have the same problem with reflists I presume? It is unfortunate that the feature doesn't work as designed, but the solution isn't removing the logical markup, but fixing the issue in the template/browser. Have you raised the issue on theTemplate_talk:Refbegin page?

would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. As to raising the issue at that talk page, no, I haven't. From discussions I've had about other templates with the same, this appears to be a larger issue affecting my browser type. Those discussions went nowhere fast, so I stopped pursuing it.BilCat (talk)02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the refbegin/ends that I've been eliminating have no parameters set at all, and I've never even seen the parameter for setting text size. I can only conclude that editors think that it's some sort of requirement and/or they prefer the look of the reduced-size text. Which puzzles me because virtually every book bibliography I've ever seen uses the same font size for the main text and the bibliography. I understand that people are used to seeing citations and footnotes in a smaller text in most every book and journal, but so what? They do it to cram more information onto a printed page, but we're not paper and why reduce text size when it's not needed and penalizes editors like yourself. I truly do not understand the pushback that I've gotten on this issue, and not just fromStgpcm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. As important as Accessibility issues are said to be to Wikipedia, I don't understand why the standard font sizes aren't the default, with the smaller sizes optional. We know different browsers can have issues, so why make it more difficult on the people who have difficulties instead of the other way around? Large fonts can be annoying, but most people with good eyesight can still read them comfortably, while the reverse is definitely not true.BilCat (talk)04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleNord Gerfaut you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Nord Gerfaut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofBuidhe --Buidhe (talk)22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSNCASO SO.8000 Narval you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofBuidhe --Buidhe (talk)02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for March 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so atWikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk)19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are letters to the editor (which is what the talkback column inAir Enthusiast is) really Reliable sources? Should they be added as references?Nigel Ish (talk)15:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so since they're approved by the editor. If he knew that they were incorrect, they wouldn't have been published. Most of the ones that I'm adding are corrections or clarifications, somethimes by well-established authorities like F. Gerdessen or Lennart Andersson. That said, I'm adding them so that editors know that they're there. If somebody's expanding the articles and doesn't think that they're useful, they can be moved to further reading or deleted entirely if superceded by more modern research, provided that they've actually been properly evaluated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now edit-warring to force the inclusion of these sources. This is unacceptable - you do not own the article and shouldn't be spamming dodgy sources into articles just to assert that ownership.Nigel Ish (talk)08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about this on the Reliable sources noticeboardWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Letters_to_the_editors.Nigel Ish (talk)09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing AFD discussion that may result in a small amount of content from another article being merged into the aftermath section of the Milliken's Bend article, so it might be best to wait on the GA review until after the AFD is settled.Hog Farm_Talk19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lemme know whenever that gets resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that's all been resolved with the addition of two sentences into the article, so it's ready now.Hog Farm_Talk17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSud-Ouest Espadon you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Sud-Ouest Espadon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofZawed --Zawed (talk)03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleNord 2200 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Nord 2200 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofEddie891 --Eddie891 (talk)16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask that when creating new sections at the end of articles that you move the Commons link into it as that is where they are meant to be located. Thanks.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember, but I usually only open a section at a time, so forgive me if I forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask you please once again to observe the existing placement of Commons links after adding sections? Guidance for the location is atTemplate:Commons category/doc. The established styles of reference section headers (names and levels) should not be changed without good reason in any case perMOS:NOTES, many forms are acceptable. Leaving these lower sections undisturbed would also avoid the existing Commons links moving up the page.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)16:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll look through my recent edits and move the commons link to the last section. I generally don't mess with the headers unless they're merely bolded instead of in proper header format. If that's the case I regard them as fair game.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)17:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected about 10 instances today, I am very busy in RL so can't check further. Changing to level 2 headers (or adding them) is creating new sections, level 3 would not do that.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some formatting cleanup on that one. I'm attempting a total rewrite of that article, and I'm not familiar enough with the process of writing ship articles to get the desired formatting down perfect.Hog Farm_Talk15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she's always been on my to-do-list, but I've been deterred by my middling command of the sources on the overall campaign, although I did just buy Chatelaine's newDefending the Arteries of the Rebellion so I can work on more of the Confederate ironclads. Wanna split the work? I'll take on the ship specifics, you deal with the situation and we'll work together on the overlap between the two. I dunno if you've got access to Smith's book, but I do, and it's got all the latest research on the Arkansas. Gosnell's book is a classic, but I'm uncertain how well it holds up and I no longer have it at hand.

Take a look at any of my ship FACs to get an idea of how I typically like organize things. First a brief intro of the situation, then the details of the ship itself, followed by construction info and service. Given that she was built in a warzone, I'm not sure that that structure is actually appropriate for Arkansas. I can work with the article's current structure, though, if you think that that's preferable. Lemme know what you think, although I need to do some reviews that I've promised before I can start serious work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea for a collaboration. I've got access to quite a few books about the Vicksburg campaign. My use of Smith was simply from the rather limited Google books preview, although I think my father might have a copy of it. My opinion of Gosnell is mixed. Some parts of the book are Gosnell's own research, while parts of it are mainly narratives from primary sources. Unfortunately, the content aboutArkansas is mainly based on the writings of Captain Brown and two of the ship's lieutenants. That's useful for some things, but I'd rather not have to use Gosnell quoting Brown as much as I've had to. As to structure, the wreck section doesn't warrant its own section. I've got a book about the submarineHunley somewhere that talks a bit more about the wreck ofArkansas, but all you can really say is that a group of people looked for it, used some old writings to track it down, and found it under a levee. There's just not enough that can be said to support a separate section for it.Hog Farm_Talk16:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect that we can rely more on Smith and, hopefully, Chatelain, than on Brown and Gosnell, as I'd expect the later writers to have reconciled the differing primary accounts as best they could. I think that the easiest thing to regarding the ship's actions is for you to write it according to what you've got and then I'll go through my sources and point out any discrepancies that we need to resolve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll probably get through it this weekend.Hog Farm_Talk16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it through the Miller, Barnhart, Gosnell, and DANFS. I'll need to go back and change where I used mdy dates instead of dmy dates, though. Looks like the infobox also needs a touchup and the lead probably needs some expansion.Hog Farm_Talk06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll flesh out the description today and make sure that it matches the infobox. Then onwards to Smith and Chatelaine!

Hog Farm Smith says that the army volunteers came from "three Missouri State Guard 1st Division artillery units: Company A, McDowell Battery (Capt. Drake McDowell, Capt. Samuel S. Harris); Company B, Richardson Artillery (Capt. E.G. Richardson); and Company C, McDonald’s Battery (Capt. Robert McDonald). Under Captains Harris and McDonald, with Lt. John D. Parsons of Co. C of the 5th Infantry Regiment and Lt. John L. Martin from Co. F of the 4th Infantry Regiment" citing Scott K. Williams and James McGhee, “Missourians Aboard the C.S.S. Arkansas,” Sons of Confederate Veterans, Missouri Division, Missouri Units, http:// www. missouridivision- scv.org/mounits/cssark.htm [accessed December 1, 2009]. It is over a decade old, so I haven't altered your text, but thought you should know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have McGhee with me when I pulled the Harris bit fromHarris's Missouri Battery (1862). I've got limited access to McGhee's CSA unit monograph again, and he also mentions McDonald's Battery upon another check. However, neither Harris nor McDonald were MSG units at this point; they'd already entered Confederate service. Gosnell calls them cavalry, which is not supported by anything else and is contradicted by him quoting Brown calling them artillerymen. So it may just be best to refer to them as vague Missouri artillerymen.Hog Farm_Talk17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)18:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleArsenal VG 90 you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood 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. SeeTalk:Arsenal VG 90 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofSimongraham --Simongraham (talk)09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo file states: “This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.” Photographer died in 1930.Orpy15 (talk)04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irritatingly, that's not exactly how it works. French copyright of 70 years was still in effect when the US adopted the URAA in 1996, which extended the term to 95 years in the US. So you can use it in 2025, not until.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Then I will patiently wait until 2025.Orpy15 (talk)15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in theJanuary 2021Military History Article Writing Contest with41 points from4 articles. Congratulations,Gog the Mild (talk)16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm just posting to let you know thatList of battlecruisers of Russia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page asToday's featured list for April 2. The TFL blurb can be seenhere. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or atTFL talk. Regards,Giants2008 (Talk)22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn when did your talk page got shorten? I really believe I've missed this. ;) Cheers.CPA-5 (talk)17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turn of the year, turn a new leaf, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How isn't this world news? They had to broadcast this. ;) Cheers.CPA-5 (talk)07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• <snicker>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen theusage stats? Why cap something that sources mostly don't?Dicklyon (talk)04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and fix those again if you have nothing to add.Dicklyon (talk)20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's a proper name. How it is any different than Battle of New Orleans or King of England? Proper names all. End of story.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence shows that the Battle of New Orleans came to be treated as a proper name about a hundred years ago. TheKing of England evidence is not so simple, but does suggest more often capped than not. As I linked above for the siege of Leningrad, sources paint a very different picture in that case. And ourMOS:CAPS saysWikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. So we should use lowercase there. Your assertion that it's a proper name doesn't pass muster.Dicklyon (talk)00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I see no value added to Wikipedia in your crusade here and would rather you devote your considerable energy to something more generally useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can't know how much that means to me.Dicklyon (talk)03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dare say that your continuing efforts tell me exactly how much that means to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same style, with links to citations. Why do you want citations to be less functional.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they use templates in cites, which I despise. Your preference for such links doesn't allow you to override WP:CITEVAR, so please stop changing things to your preferred style. This sort of behavior is exactly why CITEVAR was created. I don't mess with existing styles in the articles that I edit and you should learn to do the same, regardless of whatever improvements in functionality you feel are worthwhile.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And your personal dislike of them does not overule reader-friendliness. RFC created.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, but I doubt that you'll like the results.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, theApril 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on theAutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed atWP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles atWP:GAN orWP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted atWP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up atWikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist atWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at thedrive talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleLeduc 022 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Leduc 022 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofEddie891 --Eddie891 (talk)20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSNCAC NC 1080 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:SNCAC NC 1080 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofThe Rambling Man --The Rambling Man (talk)10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does a naval vessel's career begin before or after it is commissioned? 2. Is a vessel commissioned before or after it is constructed? Have a think about that.Pyrope02:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've entitled the section "construction and career" so it flows quite naturally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't. The active service of a naval vessel only starts after it has been handed over to the operator by the builder. The construction of a vessel is part and parcel of the shipbuilding process, following its specification and design, not its career. Hence that information rightly sits alongside the rest of the information about the physical object, not alongside information about the use to which that object was put.Pyrope02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Troubles with labor and material shortages that often trouble shipbuilding programs have no part in the design and description section. I see the construction information as the beginning of a ship's career, not least because trials often reveal major problems before the ship can be handed over to the navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)03:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start with the fact that the section you are calling "Design and description" is actually a description of its design and specification. Using the word "description" there is spurious. Right, now re-read your above comment again. You state yourself that the construction information covers everything that happens before it is handed over. That may include changes to the design as a result of changing specifications (very common in large vessels that take years to build) or items that are only brought to light in sea trials. Are you then going to start talking about these specification changes there, in the career section? Surely changes in the design are better discussed in a section dealing with its design? Fundamentally, the design and construction of a vessel is a single process involving a fair degree of back-and-forth and ongoing adjustment. The construction of a vessel isn't isn't beginning of its career, but the end of its build.Pyrope13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeeFrench battleship Brennus--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)cal structure.[reply]

What's your point? What you seem to be telling me is that a small group of editors (you?) have written a lot of articles with poor logical flow. ClassicWP:OTHERSTUFF. That article also mixes fundamental details of design and construction of the vessel in the same section that contains detailed discussion about manouvers and deployments. These two do not sit comfortably together, and it still splits out details of the physical configuration of the vessel from the main section that covers this subject.Pyrope20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you, Pyrope: why would it make sense to arbitrarily split part of the historical narrative of the ship, then insert a technical description, and then resume the narrative? You seem to be asserting that narrative and technical aspects should not be mixed, unless you want to.Parsecboy (talk)22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response, it's been a busy week. I am saying that the narrative and technical shouldn't be mixed, at the very least until the vessel has entered service. (Mid-career refits are up for another debate I guess, although I would tend to keep them in the technical section with only brief mention in the career section, but I digress.) Up until that point you are talking about the design and construction process (singular), not the vessel's career. For a human you wouldn't include their family history and schooling under a "career" heading, therefore why would you do the equivalent for a ship?Pyrope23:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I certainly understand being busy. But what I don't understand is why you are arguing that the narrative shouldn't be interspersed, except for when you want to. The design process is quite distinct from the construction process; why should they be discussed together? Yes, designs are sometimes changed during construction, but they are also frequently changed over the course of a ship's career; what's so special about the commissioning date that anything before somehow doesn't count as narrative, but everything after does?

Your analogy is not apt; what you're actually arguing is to have a section about a person's physical characteristics (i.e., how tall they are, what color their hair and eyes are, etc.) thatalso includes their childhood and family history, and then aseparate section for the details of their biography. In effect, you're arguing that because a person has not grown to maturity until their mid-20s, anything that happened in their lives before that should be considered part of their physical characteristics.Parsecboy (talk)00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wild garlic

Thank you for having improved an article about music significant in my life,Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a GA review! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleNord 1500 Griffon you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Nord 1500 Griffon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofSimongraham --Simongraham (talk)20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the term 'consort' is appropriate? Reply here and don't ping.BlueD954 (talk)04:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies equality. Escorts defend their charge and that wasn't Repulse's role in Force Z. The only escorts were a few destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Sturmvogel 66:, i don't know how to Review GA could you help pls or revert it. Thanks--Siirski (talk)01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? You accidentally started reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66:, Yes i accidentally started reviews. --Siirski (talk)01:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get that fixed for you. I'm not exactly sure what to do, but I know someone who does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks. - --Siirski (talk)01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember offhand that I've ever asked an individual to consider giving me a review at FAC, GAN or FLC, outside my general messages when doing a review (certainly not for years) ... but this is probably the right time to start, and you're a good person to start with :) Caveat: this is outside your (many) wheelhouses,Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1, but very little of what needs doing is botany-related. I'm having a specific, temporary problem: the first few lists that need to be done, before anything else can be done, are longer than what FLC reviewers are used to ... and probably for that reason, I haven't received any reviews on this for 3 weeks, even though I've been doing a lot of reviews. Can you help? (Feel free to mention that this review was solicited). - Dank (push to talk)13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. I'll try to get to this weekend, but feel free to remind me if I get distracted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just got the start of a third review on this one, from TRM ... sometimes he supports when he's done (in which case I probably won't need a 4th support), sometimes not. If you'd like to wait and see what he does, that works for me ... or, if you've already put some time into this, feel free to keep going. FWIW,Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (K–P)/archive1 also needs a support before I can nominate the Q–Z list. - Dank (push to talk)12:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hold off. TRM isn't happy, so either I'll have to edit these two substantially, or else they won't need reviewing. If things change, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk)17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was too ... well, too much. Too much going on here, and I'm not coping like I usually do. - Dank (push to talk)03:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really am sorry, you didn't deserve that. One thing I've learned is that I can't bring my plant lists to review processes, I don't have enough wiggle-room left with them to allow reviewing to work. - Dank (push to talk)14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was a bit surprised that you withdrew it so quickly, but that was certainly your prerogative. I certainly didn't take offense at any of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, I'm a bit relieved. I realized that I nominated it more out of a sense of obligation than because I wanted to. Btw, I did come up with some edits today in response to your request for links for the professions ... it occurred to me I could mention the professions (the ones that occur in the table) in the intro and in a note at the top of the table and link them once, so that I wasn't forced to repeat the links over and over. - Dank (push to talk)01:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I never thought that you'd need to link every mention because it's not a sortable table, just on the first mention. And only the more obscure professions, which is definitely a judgement call. For me, I'd expect that biologist would be common enough not to require linking, but botanist, mycologist, etc., would need links. But I have a habit of being generous with links and not worrying too much about sea of blue as long as the phrasing reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel, I don't know when, but if I can get a few more successful runs at FLC under my belt, I'll try again with the one we've been discussing ... feel free to watchlist it and weigh in or not, whatever you like. I'll do as much as I can on the points you raised before I re-nom it. - Dank (push to talk)01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... after finally giving up and working on my next nom for a few days, some answers that had been eluding me finally came to me. Ain't that always the way. Nomination is now up. - Dank (push to talk)23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse] andHMS Prince of Wales (53) I'm fed up!

BlueD954 (talk)04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How nice for you, but no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)10:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting how you've stated how an article's heading was too short in a GA nomination review, yet many of your articles you put forth for nomination are complete and total stubs with hardly any information at all and with and with single black and white image. Hypocrisy at it's finest.71.54.16.170 (talk)13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you don't get to blank the results of your failed GA nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally pinned down which Spanish warship rammed and sunk a British steamship on New Year's day 1874, I've added a history section to theSpanish ironclad Vitoria article, which you created. Are you able to expand it further?Mjroots (talk)05:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to add her construction information, but I'm uncertain about much past that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've added a bit more info on the ship's activities during the Cantonal rebellion. Greene & Massignani may have further details, but it's no longer viewable in GB and I don't have a copy.Parsecboy (talk)11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy. Thanks for the pointer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel, I've seen some of your work. In case it is usefull for you, feel free to serve yourself aroundthere. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk)20:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might just do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJapanese cruiser Takachiho you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofHog Farm --Hog Farm (talk)04:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 24 reviews between January and March 2021.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleArsenal VG 90 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Arsenal VG 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofSimongraham --Simongraham (talk)02:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The discussionhere leads me to think you might have access to Winfield'sBritish Warships in the Age of Sail, 1817-1863? I'm currently expanding an article on a naval officer who served through the middle of the nineteenth century but have access only to the previous two volumes of Winfield, leaving the narrative of service with some rather large holes. Would you be able to provide some details from1817-1862 for me, or if that's not possible perhaps suggest where I might find alternative answers?

Many thanks,

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do, who do you need info on?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)23:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything involvingHenry Smith would be great, but I'm particularly struggling with his commands ofHMS Ganges (1821) andHMS Prince Regent (1823). Thank you!Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book lacks an index for people, but forGanges it says she was recommissioned on 1 March 1848 for the Mediterranean and forPrince Regent that Smith assumed command on 7 July 1854 and went to the Baltic in early 1855 (probably a typo for 1854) as she was paid off 16 December 1854 at Portsmouth and remained in Ordinary 1855–1860.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's really useful stuff. Could you provide the page numbers forGanges andPrince Regent for future reference?Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't thinking. Page 13 for Royal George and 28 for Ganges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volume VI of Clowes appears to also have something on Henry Smith - pages 251, 277–279, 281, 284, 288, 296, 549. That might give you something you havn't for yet.Nigel Ish (talk)14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've used that volume already but thank you for bringing p. 251 to my attention. For whatever reason I ignored it the first time around!Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that theLion-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for July 6, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so atWikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks!Jimfbleak -talk to me?13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, about "two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturm, I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, but as far as I can tell you haven't promoted or demoted a topic atWP:FGTC since December. Since then I've promoted at least 14 topics and its getting a bit much. I mean this sincerely, if the project doesn't interest you, please let Gamer and I know and I'd be happy—I'm sure Gamer would as well—to find a new delegate if need be. There's a lot of director/delegate attention needed for some of these time consuming promotions, and while there is a bot being worked on it may not be ready for some time. Pinging Gamer@GamerPro64:. Best -Aza24 (talk)01:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging. I've been meaning to bring this up. I wanted more delegates for a reason and I want to make sure about your availability to close nominations.GamerPro6402:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been procrastinating about a lot of Wiki stuff lately. Lemme see what I can do today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted the Jupiter topic although I think that I forgot to add the oldid to the action. I'll take care of that when I get back from class tomorrow night. I followedUser:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions, although I'm a bit confused by what he meant by step 7 as I thought that I'd done that as part of step 5 or 6. At any rate, check my work and let me know if I missed anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory when I wrote that step 7 was update the main topic box itself. So if a new article was deemed a part of the topic's scope and the topic is demoted it should be added to main topic box itself usually with the or icon (and the count) or in the case of Jupiter there were not new articles in the scope but the icon for Jupiter was already updated by another editor[1]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk?16:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)04:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleArsenal VG 70 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Arsenal VG 70 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofZawed --Zawed (talk)10:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HiSturmvogel 66, I noticed you're part ofWP:Aviation and like military topics. I'm currently working on theGeneral Dynamics Wikipedia article, there is room for improvement on a few sections. I have a COI withGeneral Dynamics, so I will not edit the article myself but will present conceptual improvements on the talk page. To start, I rewrote the lead paragraph to clarify what the company does.Here is my proposed version. Any thoughts on this? --Chefmikesf (talk)19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated the location of the company's HQ, but it looks fine other than that. I'm not very familiar with what's covered in the articles on defense companies, so I really can't tell what ought to be there that's missing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HiSturmvogel 66, Thanks for the feedback. I removed the second location and made some updates. The code was different from the post for some reason. My intention for the edits is to simplify the lead in case others wanted to add to it. Would you be open to making the update?--Chefmikesf (talk)20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'd like to check out the articles on a couple of the other major US defense companies. What you have so far is the bare bones of the lede, but I don't know what else should be there. I find ledes the hardest part of an article to write as it's hard to strike a balance between summarizing things and providing too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach. As I said, I'm open to additions to the Lead, the intention of this version is to clean it up, remove unnecessary content, and bring attention to this article that needs improvement. Best,Chefmikesf (talk)23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your lede over and cut the county from the location. I'd suggest reinstating the bit about the sale of the Fort Worth Division and would also suggest that you rework the bit about the ten companies to cover instead the four main business groups like shipbuilding, aerospace, etc. Go ahead and make those changes and I'll put the article on my watchlist to provide some oversight. Cite #3 needs to be wikified, by which I mean that it needs to be put into one of the various cite formats like cite news, cite web, etc. If you're not familiar with them let me know and I can give you some pointers. Once you're comfortable with doing that you can go ahead and do the same with any other cites that need to be properly formatted. Another thing you could do would be to provide a citation wherever a citation needed tag is located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HiSturmvogel 66, Your suggestions make sense. I'll move this conversation to theGeneral Dynamics talk page, then I'll ping you again once I have these updates drafted. Best --Chefmikesf (talk)22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJapanese cruiser Naniwa you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Japanese cruiser Naniwa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofHog Farm --Hog Farm (talk)05:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this GA review on May 16, and haven't returned to it since. I thought you might have forgotten about it. If you don't think you'll be able to do the review, please let me know. Many thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true withTalk:Soviet frigate Svirepyy/GA1, which you opened two days earlier.BlueMoonset (talk)20:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 - Thank you for reviewingThird Battle of Winchester. The battle was complicated and the article is long, so I appreciate you making the effort and I glad it is someone with your background.TwoScars (talk)20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I saw some historical signs for some of the battles in Winchester, so I figure this will give me a good excuse to learn about at least one of the battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Glad I learned to use "upright=" instead of "px".TwoScars (talk)14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now changing the editors ofConway's All the World's Fighting Ships to match your personal preference. Where is the consensus for this change? Or don't you need consensus?Nigel Ish (talk)10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely. I'm changing the cites to refer to the individual chapters and their authors as we should have been doing from the beginning. I'm using the info as given in the books for the editors. The real uncertainty is how to refer to Gardiner who is named as the editorial director over the individual editors. Since he's not listed as an editor per se, I'm chosing to ignore him in the cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you areWP:OWNING these articles, there is little point in arguing with you. As my presence on these articles is not wanted I will not waste any effort on improving them.Nigel Ish (talk)17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, Nigel - it's pretty standard to cite the chapter authors of edited volumes, not just the editors.Parsecboy (talk)17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are also forcing use of the US edition of Conway's as well, thus prohibiting anyone who only has the UK edition from editing. Congratulations to you both on your efforts to drive me away.Nigel Ish (talk)18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a breath, no one is trying to drive anyone away. One has to pick an edition, and wouldn't you likewise be forcing me to use the UK edition if that's what you cite? It's no different from using a specific new or old edition (Burt's series on British battleships come to mind, as they have markedly different pagination between editions).Parsecboy (talk)18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I value your contributions, Nigel and don't understand why you're upset. My personal copies of Whitley's books are from the Naval Institute Press, but I'm perfectly content to use the UK edition since the pagination is identical. Feel free to change editions for any of the Conway's volumes, but be sure to change the ISBN as I've mixed up which edition uses which ISBN before with Conway's. And you can always update the existing UK edition citations with the new info on chapter name, author and page range yourself. There are still lots of British ships that I haven't updated yet and having somebody else help out would be very useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the editions are different then by changing the edition you are also invalidating all edits using the old edition. I trust that you will remove all edits made by these now forbidden editions.Nigel Ish (talk)19:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, paginations for the US and UK editions of Conway's are identical, AFAIK. I was specifically referring to the ISBNs which Parsec and I had screwed up earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will be pleased to know that I have taken all Royal Navy ships off my watchlist as you have effectively barred me from editing them - this will allow you to force references to your own personal preference and delete everyone else's contributions without disruption. Congratulations - I hope the pair of you are proud of yourselves.Nigel Ish (talk)20:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? No one has barred you from anything, and this is not "personal preference", it's standard for both main citation style guides used for historical topics (as I have pointed out on my talk page). If anything, the idea that wedon't need to cite chapter authors isyour personal preference.Parsecboy (talk)20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno why you're reacting in such a way to a minor change in referencing, but so be it. Hope to see you reconsider at some soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on the header section of the articleCurtiss P-1 Hawk does not have a picture, but the sections have pictures of the aircraft and its variants.

How about putting a picture on the infobox? (might not presumably due to MoS)...

Thanks.User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!}15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations |July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You cansign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in theJune 2021Military History Article Writing Contest, with three articles achieving30 points. Congratulations,Zawed (talk)03:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many articles submitted if my three won!

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 17 reviews between April and June 2021.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)00:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865 by James McPherson and Blue & Gray Navies: The Civil War Afloat by Spencer Tucker - are you familiar with either of these? Considering getting an ACW naval warfare book to read over the summer and wondering if either of these are worthwhile.Hog Farm_Talk05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have the former, but haven't read it yet. It's gotten great reviews though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)07:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated.Gog the Mild (talk)20:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to say no, I know you've got a lot on your plate, but I thought you might want to know that these lists are about to get much shorter and easier to review ... I'll be nommingList of plant family names with etymologies as soon as I get one more support in thecurrent FLC nom. And on top of that, 3/4 of the rows with namesakes have already been reviewed in other FLCs, which might make it easier. I've been reviewing Milhist noms at FLC for a while now ... let me know if you've got any feedback on how I'm doing with those. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. This new list still has the feature that some rows with namesakes have a lot of information and some have very little ... there are ways around that now (such as dropping the extra information and linking to other lists that have that extra information), if this is something you still want to talk about. - Dank (push to talk)15:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New problem ...List of plant genera named for people (K–P) is one of the "older nominations" now, without a second support. That hasn't happened before, for my noms. FLC is running a little slower (I'll assume that's just a summertime thing, unless it continues in the fall) ... but there may also be an etiquette problem here, that is, the usual reviewers might be waiting for you to at least say that you have no objections on the points you raised the last time around, before they take a look. I'm not sure if that's the case, and I'm not in a hurry, but it would be appreciated if you could stop in and say, at a minimum, "grumble grumble, not exactly what I was looking for but at least some effort has been made so I'm not going to oppose". (Or you could be more positive than that. And if you want to do a review, that would be great.) If you have time. - Dank (push to talk)13:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very helpful. Tim Riley just supported. If you still want to review, that's great, I look forward to it, but if you decide at some point that you're probably done, then please say that in the review ... I probably won't get any other reviewers stopping by if it looks like I've got 2 supports with another one likely. - Dank (push to talk)14:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can make some time later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forHMS Hood (51), introduced: "HMS Hood symbolized the British Empire before World War II and her sinking by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941 was a huge shock."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I live to serve!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

frozen

my turn today:my joy (perhaps you remember that you once did a GA review for it) - moreon my talk - best wishes for 2022 --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see that it made the front page. How could I forget that GAN? Probably the most contentious and frustrating one that I've ever done due to your involuntary collaborator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you -Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that I don't have anyone special to share them with, but thanks for your kind thoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now St. Patrick's Day: thank you forHMS Erin, introduced (in 2018): "HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922."! - Perhaps you can add your expertise toa ship article I reviewed? --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sturmvogel. I just wanted to make a quick note about your comment on the StuG III article, where you said Tank Encyclopedia isn't really a reliable source.

Being in contact with the website's authors, I can tell you that's definitely not the case. Many are (former) tankers, historians, in contact with historians, authors of books (such as Craig Moore – his books can be found online), or generally well informed people when it comes to the subject. Articles published by the website are always based on books and archive documents, which are quoted on the articles' bottoms, like on Wikipedia. At least on the website's newer articles. The quality of their articles has improved very much over time.

There are some outdated articles that have warning signs about this at their beginning – some of them, which are especially outdated, have even been archived and cannot be found on the site's article list anymore. This shows they are very careful with their stuff and don't want to misinform anyone.

Overall, at the moment, TE is a much better source than WP when it comes to tank-related material. It is definitely not a fan-forum or anything like that.

Best regards,Lupishor (talk)15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it more closely, but I'm concerned that it may not meet our standards forWP:RS. They may well be experts and very knowledgeable, but if they haven't been professionally published then that may not matter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, thank you. Please ping me upon any further replies. Cheers!Lupishor (talk)10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Moore's I found was published byThe History Press, which, while not a vanity press, isn't exactly on the same tier as an academic press. I wasn't able to find any reviews of the book, and add to that Moore is described as a retired cop, not a historian, and it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

As for the site, I can't find an "about" page that lists the contributors (Moore or anyone else), just a vague description of a team of 60+ individuals. We need to know who exactly is writing the material and what their credentials are to evaluate the site as a source.

From what I'm seeing, it looks like a hobbyist site. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited in our articles. And if articles at Tank Encyclopedia cite sources, we should be using those sources (that doesn't ring any Navweaps bells, does it, Sturm?)Parsecboy (talk)10:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom there's a gallery of clickable images that includes The Team. I scrolled through about half of the lengthy list and found one guy who's self-published multiple books, but most all of the other ones had no relevant professional publishing credentials. The individual articles seem to vary widely in quality, but to the site's credit most of the worst are labelled as needing further work. Some articles did have a list of sources, but not all.

I still need to replace the Navweaps refs with ones from Friedman in a lot of my articles, but only tend to do it for existing FAs and articles up for promotion. One of these days, they'll all be gone!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel, how exactly should I interpret the reply? Would you say that their high-quality articles can count as reliable sources, but the worse ones (including those that cite no sources) cannot?

About the varying quality of articles - as I said in my initial comment, low quality ones are mostly older ones. Quality has improved over time, with the site getting more and more professional. As you said yourself, low quality (mostly older) articles are labeled as needing a rework - others have been archived entirely.Lupishor (talk)21:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear. I don't think that the vast bulk of the contributors meet the criteria to be considered reliable sources, which means that the whole site cannot be used as a source. Your best bet is to use the sources mentioned and read them for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The age of naval ships is of interest to many of our Wikipedia users, especially those interested in history; it puts a ship into a historical context. Your recent reverts ofUSS Hornet (CV-12) andJ-, K- and N-class destroyer with the simple comment "Age unimportant" and "Nobody cares how long ago that was" may not be in the spirit of the Wikipedia community.Truthanado (talk)03:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that many of our readers want to know the how long it's been since the ship was built, etc. If they were, I'd expect either requests for that info on talk pages or they'd be making the appropriate changes themselves. You are the only person that I've ever seen make those changes and I've never had a reader request a ship's age in over a decade of editing here and a very extensive watchlist of ship articles. I would suggest that you open a discussion over atWT:SHIPS to get a sense of how other editors feel about your proposed changes. Until then I suggest you stop making them and self-revert those that you might have made on articles which I don't watch until a consensus emerges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's no reason to do it. Ships aren't people, and they don't age in the same way. And even if someone wanted to know how old a given ship is, it's fairly basic arithmetic. We don't need to add yet more clutter to infoboxes, when they're typically already bloated with extraneous details.Parsecboy (talk)11:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleJapanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. 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 byLegobot, on behalf ofNick-D --Nick-D (talk)07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this review back on June 27 and haven't yet returned to conduct the review. Please stop by as soon as possible. Many thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true ofTalk:Battle of Hancock/GA1. Thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturm, I see you've added English to the sources, presumably to add detail about the destroyers sunk in the Dodecanese minefield? I was thinking she was ready for a possible co-nom for FAC? Cheers,Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even though I'm a bit puzzled how Freivogel consistently mis-dated the incidents. I think it's pretty well ready for FAC as well, so go ahead and nominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJapanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood 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. SeeTalk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofNick-D --Nick-D (talk)23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt at creating a ship article from a redlink. (A USA revenue cutter taken into Confederate service that later saw minimal military action). Infobox likely needs work, but beyond that, do you think it's close to GAN-able? I've only done one ship GA (USSIndianola), so I'm not super used to judging these article quite yet. There's not much detail available it seems about this one's service.Hog Farm_Talk03:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I see you reverted my edit toC and D-class destroyer. On the points you made in the edit comment:

• No abbreviated months: short months make sense in space-restricted areas, such as multiple columns with dates in them. It's an obvious way to help keep the columns from getting unnecessarily wide just to print "September". It also tends to make the columns less visibly variable based on the variegations of the data within them.
• don't see a need for a separate column for refs: Many tables don't need a separate column for refs, but this one is absolutely a case where a Refs column makes sense, on several points:
  1. If you look at the reflist at the bottom after your edit or before I edited, reference number 18 (English p.51) has33 instances of being referenced. It's aridiculously long refcount for a single reference in an article like this. In my version, 10.
  2. You can think of a data table as just a collection of similarly-worded sentences, but without all the extra conjunctions, repeated verbs, etc. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't allow a sentence to stand like this in any article text:

     HMSDuncan was laid down on 25 September 1931^[1] in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth^[1], launched on 7 July 1932^[1], completed being built on 31 March 1933^[1], and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.^[2]

     Yes, I know it's a bit of a clunky sentence, but the point is that it is clearly citation overkill. If would be much better written as such:

     HMSDuncan was laid down on 25 September 1931 in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth, launched on 7 July 1932, completed being built on 31 March 1933, and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.^[1][3]

     And that is all that moving the refs to their own Refs column is doing. Especially when you consider that,without exception, every builder and date in the date columns for C-class ships came from English p. 45, and all the builders and dates in the D-class ships came from English p. 51. There is no need to repeat Eng-p45 or Eng-p51 for every builder and date cell in the table.
• truly dislike the column for class: Unfortunately, the pseudo-header row subheaders for C- and D-class have to go. This is an accessibility thing. AtMOS:COLHEAD, they show two examples to resolve the problem: either a separate column for the two different groups (as I edited the table); or two separate tables, one for C-class, one for D-class. I'm okay with either, so you can choose. I'll go either way, but the pre-existing method can't stay.  — sbb (talk)15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late thought: Because the builder & date columns all have the same reference (for each class), a table note, footnote, reference attached to the caption (if the tables are split between C & D), or some other deduplication method, would make more sense than putting the same ref in a ref column, even more so than my edit. The unique refs per Fate field would then stay put, and then absolutely no need for a ref column.  — sbb (talk)15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting the table into one for each class is the best solution, with the appropriate refs in the column headers. What's up with your change to exclamation points to lead off each row? Doesn't seem to have done anything visible, although I'd have thought it would bold the entries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)18:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's subtle. From a strict accessibility viewpoint, thescope="row" is ignored if the cell isn't a table header cell (HTML<th>, designated by wikitext!, not|). The visible difference is always a slightly darker background. If the table has{{{1}}}, then row headers (specified by!scope="row"|) aren't bold and the cell is left-justified. If "plainrowheaders" is given for the table, then row headers are bold and centered, just like column headers.  — sbb (talk)22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had no idea, but my command of table syntax is somewhat rudimentary. Now if I can just remember all this new code!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd take this opportunity to firstly thank you again for taking up the first three GAs I put up for review. Your comments on all of them were very helpful and I've attempted to implement your suggestions in my more recent edits as well. I don't have as much time to write up somewhat large articles right now and thought instead that I might attempt an A-class review for one of my existing GAs, perhapsHMS Caroline (1795). I was wondering if you might have any suggestions on how I might push to improve the article? Either way, thanks again for the assistance you've provided as I've slowly learned how to edit.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a friendly ping for the review I've left atTalk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)/GA1. Regards,Nick-D (talk)08:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJapanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofNick-D --Nick-D (talk)11:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Sturmvogel 66! The article you nominated,Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) viaFACBot (talk)12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between July and September 2021.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for 17 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work.Gog the Mild (talk)21:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over later this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Vikhr.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used undernon-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go tothe file description page, and edit it to include anon-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described insection F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Shtorm(ship).jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to thepage history of each individual file for details. Thanks,FastilyBot (talk)10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I left a message for you at my talk page. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk)21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Tupolev Tu-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)21:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Hood&oldid=1055728727Hi, last night I spent some time amending HMS Hood references to further expand on the coding as an improvement... However you seem to have spent some time undoing the work to revert it to an old way; I have no quarrel, I am relatively new to coding on wikipedia; but I am pondering why you decided to do that, please and thanks...(User talk:Cltjames)

Suffice it to say that I dislike sfn format. People tend to be very particular about which citation format they prefer and you should not change it without getting a consensus unless the article meets the criteria in WP:CITEVAR for unilateral changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I noticed that you markedHMS Hood andUSS Lexington (CV-2) as "Updated" atWP:URFA/2020B. Does this mean that the articles meetthe FA criteria? If so, can you change "Updated" to "Satisfactory"? If not, can you leave some notes on the article's talk page on how the article can meet improved and link those notes in URFA/2020? If you have any questions, please ping me and I will be happy to help.Z1720 (talk)21:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Sturmvogel 66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyableNew Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk)14:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations |January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You cansign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf ofWikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The WikiEagle

TheWikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project •Project discussion •Members •Assessment •Outreach •The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the nameThe WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and itssub-projects. If you wish to continue receivingThe WikiEagle, you can add your username to themailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, pleaselet us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December,an RfC was closed which determinedtheaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which iscited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to thelist of problematic sources afterthis discussion. TheJim Lovell article waspromoted toFeatured Article status on 26 December after being nominated byHawkeye7. TheRaymond Hesselyn article waspromoted toGood Article status on 4 December after being nominated byZawed. TheSupermarine Sea King article waspromoted toGood Article status on 22 December after being nominated byAmitchell125. TheWilliam Hodgson (RAF officer) article waspromoted toGood Article status on 26 December after being nominated byZawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386.Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed aspromoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed asnot promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed aspromoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed aspromoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed aspromoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed asdelete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed askeep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip →Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed asmoved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash →Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed asmoved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 →Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) –Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω =250,915 Ω = 4.88
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name →List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts →List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name →List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines →Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation →Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System →Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X →Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon →Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 →Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 →Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 →Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 →Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 →Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 →TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 →Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 →CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways →Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet →Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations →List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that theaerobatic demonstration aircraft used bySoloTürk is also used in military operations of theTurkish Air Force?(24 December)
Discuss & propose changes toThe WikiEagle atThe WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from themailing list. Newsletter contributor:ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between October and December 2021.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for 17 March 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found atWikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk)18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does either Canney or Silverstone's newer work have anything of interest to say about this vessel? I've given it an expansion/GAN based on the sources I have available to me.Hog Farm_Talk06:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but let me see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel, an article atWP:URFA/2020 that you originally nominated for FA status,Russian battleship Potemkin, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets thefeatured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" onWP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to theURFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing!Z1720 (talk)15:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Looks like the bot awarded me 15 bonus points for my DYK ofThe West Wing'sThe Long Goodbye (seemy submissions page)—I'm assuming that's because of the article's longevity (created in '06), but it was a redirect from 2013—2022. Does that still count? Thanks in advance :)theleekycauldron (talk •contribs) (she/they)20:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of theWikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I've noticed you haven't closed any topic nominations in months. I was wondering if you still want to be a delegate for Featured Topics?GamerPro6421:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I decided to take you off the delegation list. If you do want to help out let me know.GamerPro6403:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InHMS Nottingham (1913), you reverted my change of "Home and Grand Fleets" to "Home and Grand fleets" saying "still proper nouns". This is not a big thing, but it goes against most style manuals that I know. In our own,MOS:POLITICALUNITS gives the example:

Incorrect (generic plural): The Cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta.

Correct (generic plural): The cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta.

Correct (plural legal entities): The City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton have dissimilar rent-control ordinances.

I leave it up to you whether to undo the revert.Jmchutchinson (talk)06:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Was poking around and noticed Gallica has some way better images than we have. If you wanted to choose one of these?https://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&version=1.2&startRecord=0&maximumRecords=15&page=1&query=%28gallica%20all%20%22Jean%20bart%22%29&filter=dc.type%20all%20%22image%22

Adam Cuerden^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of allFPs}21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Hey there, sorry for bothering you but will you continue the review of theRomanian Air Corps article? Was wondering since the last time we worked on it was last month and you did say that it should be nearly done. Thank you!Alin2808 (talk)17:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) andCwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk)10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 3 points worth of articles during theJanuary 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator.Trainsandotherthings (talk)03:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mails gratefully received. I'm only de-½, so am heavily reliant on Google Translate. Will see what I can add from those sources.Mjroots (talk)05:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about the same. The annoying thing about Gröner is having to translate the headings on the table to confirm what you think you're reading and then all the abbreviations in the brief ship's history. I'd suggest replacing both of your borderline online sources with those two as much as you can. Lemme know if you need more scans of either source for other articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What page of Dalzel-Job does the info you added come from? The{{sfn}} template needs correctly formatting to clear the error categoryCategory:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Use {{sfn|Dalzel-Job|1993|page=}} with the page number filled in and it'll go.Mjroots (talk)17:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhere in chapter 11, but my copy is a .epub with unreliable pagination. One reason why I dislike sfn and similar cite formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations |June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part?Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t ·c)buidhe04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to try to flesh this one out a bit using Chatelain'sDefending the Arteries of Rebellion, Bisbee'sEngines of Rebellion, and Luraghi'sA History of the Confederate Navy. I've also got Still'sIron Afloat, but I'm assuming it's been pretty well gleaned. I'm starting with Chatelain, and noticing that he gives differing details in a few spots - Chatelain p. 262 says that the vessel was formally commissioned on September 19, but the article cites Koehler and Stehman as it being commissioned on September 12. Chatelain gives Fauntleroy's rank as a 1st Lt., but Still calls him a Lieutenant Commander. Any thoughts on how you want to handle the differences between sources? Fauntleroy's rank probably isn't all that significant, but the date of commission is. (P.S. - I've only skimmed Bisbee, but he suggests that there is some uncertainty if the machinery came fromGrand Era orT. W. Roberts; Chatelain also suggestsPaul Jones as a source of some machinery).Hog Farm_Talk21:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canney says that she "was turned over to Confederate authorities on 12 September", although she was still unarmed at that time. The easiest thing to do is to use that phrasing for 12 Sept. and commissioning on 19 Sep., IMO.

I've done a closer read of Bisbee and Canney and there are some worthwhile details that I'll add. I'd like to delete your addition of "Because no rolling mill was available, the rails were attached directly." as that seems redundant to the earlier statement about being spiked to the backing, although I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "attached directly".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"attached directly" is the wording from Chatelain; I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to signify either and am perfectly fine with removal. If you've got better access to Bisbee that would be great; I only have scans from a library e-book that are of probably dubious ethicality (which I justified by telling myself the publisher shouldn't have made the work so hard to get ahold of).Hog Farm_Talk18:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Fauntleroy's rank, he could have been promoted while in command, although his rank could be verified through the Official Records or if there's a biographical dictionary of Confederate naval officers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Register of Officers of the Confederate States Navy has him as a 1st Lieutenant.Hog Farm_Talk18:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me! I snagged my copy of Bisbee as soon as it was published as engine details of the ironclads have long been an impenetrable mystery. It's been surprisingly even more useful than I expected. Can you ILL a copy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give ILL a check - between my wife and I we have access to two university libraries and three county libraries, so it's a possibility.Hog Farm_Talk19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty well done with it; see what you think. Do you want to put it up for ACR?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to an ACR co-nom if you think it's in good shape - Luraghi contains nothing useful and neither do the handful of other naval sources I have around in print. I'm hoping to getBaltic to FAC eventually once I can getKablammo's concern about what measurement to use for the displacement/tonnage figure to use figured out.Hog Farm_Talk19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a day or two then read through it critically and see what you think. I think that I've linked everything that should be linked and that the text flows pretty well. But I'm never a good editor of my own stuff. Tweak it as necessary and then nom it.

I never did fill out the details for Baltic and Fredericksburg like I promised. I'll try to get to them once I've reviewed all the GANs that I claimed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple edits and plan to make a few minor cite cleanups (bundling the duplicate cites and getting Olmstead spelled right), but I do have a citation question -The third gun was a smoothbore 9-inch (229 mm) Dahlgren pivot gun that could fire out of either of the two aft broadside gun ports. andAn old 32-pounder (14.5 kg) siege gun was in the equivalent position on the port side of the ship. both wind up cited to Olmstead et al - while I don't have a copy of the Olmstead source my understanding of this source is that it's a detailing of gun characteristics that probably doesn't speak specifically on the armament ofMissouri. It looks like I can get Bisbee for two weeks at a time from a local library, so I can check there and if necessary in the ORNs to find a ref for gun placement if Olmstead doesn't cover it directly.Hog Farm_Talk03:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited the position of the 32-pdr to Canney and cleaned up some typos. Should be ready to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJoffre-class aircraft carrier you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Joffre-class aircraft carrier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofHog Farm --Hog Farm (talk)18:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an article on V 213Zieten, but need a check done before I release into mainspace. I'm not sure I've got the French Navy stuff correct, so would you please check Roche and make any necessary amendments?Mjroots (talk)10:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your email raises a few issues. According toKbismark, UJ 1401 was formerlyFriedrich Busse, but Gröner p.172 disagrees. Kbismark has no UJs scuttled at Nantes. Groner has no UJs built by Bremer Vulkan.

I think Roche has the former identity ofAstrolabe incorrect.Mjroots (talk)14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be correct, but there are lots of discrepancies that I cannot resolve such as Gröner not showing Busse renamed as FJ 1401. And Rohwer shows V213 escaping to Jersey on 26/27 June after engaging two Allied destroyers, but V204 isn't mentioned at all. So perhaps the question should be which ship was renamed V213 after Zieten became V204.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to add more, or would this one be in good enough shape to consider an ACR? I'm hoping to work some of the ironclad articles this summer - I just picked up a copy of Smith's book aboutCarondelet and Robert'sCivil War Ironclads for under $10 each, and can get Smith's work on tinclads from the library and ILL his work on timberclads, so I might even be able to take on some of the Union ones, at least to B-Class. It looks like Roberts has some information on the construction of thePassaic-class, which isn't as well covered on Wikipedia as most of the other monitors.Hog Farm_Talk03:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked over the stuff about her operational history, but I think that the technical side and construction stuff is pretty solid. I'd be happy to take it to ACR with you once I've had a chance to do that. I'm not offhand familiar with Robert's book, but Canney's books on the USN and CSN are pretty much the gold standard for the technical and construction side of things, which makes me wonder why Bisbee didn't reference his CSN book that was already published when Bisbee wrote his.

I've got most of the books on the Union ships that you've mentioned above and would be happy to help out if you'd like, but I think that these last couple of articles should provide a model for you on the level of technical detail and organization that I think is appropriate for an A-class article. If you'd prefer to take them to B-class or GAN yourself and then have me add details from Canney, etc. for a joint GAN or ACR, that would be fine. Or not, whatever you'd like. One warning though is that we've been working on singleton ships where a lot of detail is appropriate; for ships in a class, some of that detail gets transferred to the class article if it's not particular to that individual ship. Forex, I'd put all the stuff about engine bore & stroke, propeller diameter and gun details into the class article while just leaving the engine type and gun model in the ship article with links.

Why does the DANFS cite need that annoying ref=none field? Is it because it's a cite web rather then cite book?

When you get a chance, take a look at theCSS Arkansas article; I put a bunch of work into it earlier, but am thinking that I need to split out the details on the combat into a separate article on the battle while summarizing those details for the ship's article. Lemme know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)10:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The local library doesn't have either of Canney's works, so I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to go through some of them when you have time and a joint ACR would probably be best at least for awhile. I haven't had a chance to read through Roberts much yet, but his work appears to hit the construction fairly hard but is lighter on the service history, which is probably easier to find sourcing for. I'm still learning the ropes a bit on the naval articles, so hopefully they aren't too messy to clean up.

Without any sense of false modesty, I think that the format that Parsec and I have developed over the years is pretty good for uninitiated readers with a plethora of links and a logical narrative that flows well. I almost completely overhauled Fredericksburg's description section and it might be worthwhile to study what I did there. I always split out construction stuff from the description as it can otherwise be confusing if you're throwing dates around. The way you had it was perfectly fine for a GA-level article, but I'm not sure that it would have sufficed at FAC.

I'm a bit confused by Bisbee's sourcing choices at times too. For instance, withBaltic, pretty much every source other than him says that the vessel was built in PA. He doesn't make any reference to this in the text or footnotes that I've seen, and his sourcing for his claim of New Albany, IN is to some pre-war newspaper articles. How he tied those articles to the Confederate ship I'm not sure, but it seemed odd to me to go that much against the grain without at least an explanation in a footnote.

I'll see if I can at least clarify some of these issues in the Baltic article for you from Canney, even if only to copy over the statement from Fredericksburg that the exact type of tonnage is unknown, so you can send it up to FAC.

The ref=none is because in that case, the DANFS cite is set up as a <ref></ref> citation, while the long citation uses the citation template, and the two types of citations don't mesh well. It generally only flags a minor error, but I have a user script installed that shows some reference formatting errors in colored warning fonts, so I did that to remove it. The ref=none is something that could probably be removed (although the "error" would probably be questioned if an FAC was ever made), although those "errors" sometimes attract CitationBot, who often does referencing changes I don't appreciate. Another solution would be to hardkey the DANFS citation directly without using the template.

So unrelated to the error that causes@Parsecboy: to add |ref={{sfnRef|X}} while using the sfn format so he gets the actual link to the source in the Bibliography. I've never been able to figure out why that happens (no link to the source), because it's not consistent as far as I can tell. I've done a couple of articles with Peacemaker using sfn format, which I'm not fond of, BTW, and never had that problem despite using identical code to my eyes. WTF?

I've always used the sfn format, but mainly because that's what I've first used (and I had a good experience with it atWikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1), although I'm reasonably comfortable with the other format and am willing to switch to it for the ironclad articles. (I find the sfns help me avoid spelling/date errors in the ref names, although paying more attention would solve that also).Hog Farm_Talk06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree reArkansas with splitting out the battle material and then doing a tighter summary in the main article. I just am not sure what the split-out article would be titled (Action of 15 July 1862?). I've got several works on Vicksburg that could be used to flesh out the battle article more if desired.Hog Farm_Talk15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSSArkansas vs. the entire Mississippi Squadron has a certain ring to it, doncha think? The Action of X is kinda the Wiki go to, but is very bland and uninformative. This battle is kind of famous among people who like the Western Theater of the Civil War and I'd like to keep the ship's name in the title, so people know that it involvesArkansas rather than some piddly little engagement between tinclads or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give my Vicksburg books a perusal over the weekend to see if there's something they consistently refer to the action by (I see NHHC hasa category for "CSSArkansas vs. Union Fleet", which is another decent descriptor).Hog Farm_Talk06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind CSS Arkansas vs. the Union Fleet either. Appreciate you checking for a common name we can use for a title. BTW, those recent edits regarding CSN ship namesakes has prompted my memory. Somehow I'd completely forgotten that I have a book on hand that actually covers namesakes that I've used a million times for my ship articles. Somehow I had it in my head that it didn't cover Confederate warships and didn't think to double-check that. At any rate I'll be adding them to the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard'sVicksburg: The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi uses "Arkansas's battle with the Union fleet", Chatelain'sArteries of Rebellion understates it as "Run to Vicksburg", the majority of sources I have don't give it an explicit name. Would it step on your toes any if I made any updated toUser:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads? I stumbled across it using "what links here" once - I updated forIndianola when I found it and just did so forFredericksburg. (I also stayed up late last night and did some work onUSSSquando).Hog Farm_Talk20:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't think that there'd be a consistent name for that battle. Feel free to update as needed. I've mostly been forgetting to do that as you can tell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the note about the unknown type of tonnage to the Baltic article. Was there anything else that needed to be done for that article before a FAC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Canney or somebody had extra information, I don't think so. If you wanted to do a co-nom, it could be put up right now, or I could wait until the FAC forBattle of Van Buren closes and then bring it myself. Either way is fine by me if you're comfortable with the article content.Hog Farm_Talk22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canney doesn't have much, but he does say that the ship had two Dahlgrens (of unspecified size) and three 32-pounders, but does note one source that says it was one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders. Worth a note, or better incorporated directly into the text? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk)22:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone 1989 gives the 2 Dahlgren, 2 32lb-er, and 2 misc. figure as well (probably pulling from DANFS, which I've found that Silverstone 1989 follows too heavily at times). I skimmed the scans of Bisbee I had and didn't see anything about armament. Might be better to footnote then.Hog Farm_Talk23:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with Baltic; I removed the inflation calculation as capital costs increase far more rapidly than CPI-style inflators can recognize. AFAIC (concerned), ready to nom whenever you're comfortable with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no further concerns; if you're okay with a co-nom for FAC I can set one up after I get off work.Hog Farm_Talk15:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<horrified face>But we'll lose a couple of hours! Who knows who's inclined to review now, but won't be later?</horrified face>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges:Sturmvogel 66 (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleARA Catamarca (1912) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:ARA Catamarca (1912) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofHog Farm --Hog Farm (talk)18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Sturm. Could I beg some eyes onmy FAC forUSS Johnston (DD-557)? I'm totally willing to pay you in kind later if it's not too much trouble for you. –♠Vami_IV†♠10:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a source review, but had to oppose and I have to agree with Gog as a lot of your language is unprofessional (pummel?). I'd suggest fixing things as per his comments and then withdrawing it. If you're willing, I'd be happy to help you rework the article and then we could co-nominate it, much as I've done for HogFarm with his CSS Baltic article.

Obviously I have no idea if you want to continue working on US ships, or even ships in general, but if you do I'd suggest starting to build a library covering the ships that interest you, by either purchase or copying them once you've gotten them through Inter-library Loan. I have some of the books that we'd need to revise the article if you don't have access to them.

While I haven't written much on US ships, I do have a couple of FAs that you might find profitable to read, if for no other reason, to learn a style that does pass FAC pretty easily. NotablyArizona,Lexington andSaratoga. I can't remember if I've kept them fully up to date with the changing standards at FA, but you might be able to point out a few things that I need to update.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do as you say.

I've always had a passing interest in World War II, but especially the Pacific War. You might remember that my first real contribution to MILHIST was a clumsy attempt to getList of sunken battleships to FL. I'm but an entry-level amateur, and thought I'd spied an area of the Encyclopedia that could be relatively quickly and easilycompleted, based on cursory glances at other USN articles. I'm dismayed to see that my work wasn't up to par, but better to know that and be able to improve than publish a bunch of baloney and hurt our credibility. I'd love to get this and the other Fletchers to FA, if you think you're up to... 177 or so FACs - orJohnston at the very least.

I was aware of a newer version of Friedman, but I was unable to find a copy. Generally what I use in an article is decided as you might imagine by if I can access it; that has not been the case for a few books I (and then Hog Farm, who reviewed DD-557 at GAN) looked into. If we collaborate, you may find that I'm more dead weight than worthwhile collaborator. –♠Vami_IV†♠05:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, at least initially, but my intention is more to mentor you in identifying what works at FAC and then let you go to work mostly on your own, with me offering advice and corrections as needed. One of the first things that I like to do is build the description section with an introductory sentence or two that can be used as boilerplate across all of the individual ship articles, coupled with a paragraph on the ship's construction and possibly its initial assignment, depending on how much info I have available. See my recent articles on Argentinian DDs,Catamarca andJujuy for examples. They're written to FAC standard, as are all of my articles that I intend to at least send to GAN, but I'll probably never take them to ACR as there's a dearth of sources for them and I have little interest in hunting down references to them in Spanish-language sources.

Similarly, I build a standard bibliography in a consistent format for use across all the articles and add or subtract titles as necessary. I'll show you what I mean when I fix the errors I identified in my source review and add some of the titles that I mentioned. I totally agree with you about letting the available sources guide which articles to work on and would advise that you initially limit yourself to those ships that were lost during the war to keep things as easy as possible at the beginning of your project. Sourcing for ships that weren't transferred to foreign navies after the war are pretty easy given DANFS, but those ships that were transferred can be problematic as I've discovered with some of the British DDs. Just something to keep in mind.

I have the 2005 revised edition of Friedman, but I've just ordered the newer one as it has more pages. I'll have to do a comparison between the two editions to see what's different. Hopefully, Friedman's done more with the new one than add illustrations ;-) For the nonce, don't worry about the sources as I can pretty much get anything that we might need or already have it on hand.

Lemme know whenever you've fixed the issues that Gog identified and have withdrawn the nom and I'll fix up the bibliography. I'll have to wait for Friedman to be delivered, plus I need to order a history of the whole class to see if there's anything useful that Friedman doesn't cover in it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall continue to work on the US Navy to the best of my abilities, and with growing confidence. At the moment, I am gnawing onSimón Bolívar andWikipedia:Featured article review/A Song for Simeon/archive1, and I expect to soon be rewriting another ColonelHenry FA, but I'll commit within this month or the next to working onJohnston and the Fletchers.

Does that history of the class happen to beFletcher Class Destroyers by Alan Raven? Hog Farm looked it up to see if it had any details on the Johnston's radar array - all sources but Hornfischer have thus far frustrated me on this, and even Hornfischer names radar units only in passing, rather than something like a stat sheet - and we were disappointed.

Speaking of frustration, a very short look at one of the USN articles you linked above, and a query by Gog aboutJohnston's hull number, led me to discovering that the DANFS as it exists now does not discuss hull numbers or their significance. So it would seem that the DANFS you used to writeArizona,Saratoga, andLexington is not the DANFS I used to writeJohnston. –♠Vamí_IV†♠19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, but the entry on Johnston is about the best that I've ever seen in DANFS. But DANFS rarely covers equipment in any detail. In my two carrier articles I just linked to the article on hull number while discussing their conversions. And in Arizona, I didn't even do that much; something that I'll have to address in a similar manner. But Gog wasn't around then to ask about hull numbers. I've received and been disappointed the new edition of Friedman; it's just a straight reprint that I'll be returning to the publisher as the book's listing is very misleading.

For both the RN and the USN figuring out light AA and radar configurations is about the most difficult thing to do as they changed constantly and sources rarely covered all the changes in detail, particularly for members of large classes like the Fletchers. I've got some other resources on hand that might clarify things, but we'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Johnston was one of the later Fletchers and had the standard AA armament and was sunk before the anti-Kamikaze AA refits began in 1945. Her radars are also pretty standard, although I've got nothing to tell me if she received a Mk-12 fire-control radar before her loss. But that picture of her refuelling is pretty suggestive that she didn't as I'm pretty sure that she still had her original Mk-4 radar as of that date. But that's just my conjecture and not an RS. I'll have to settle for saying that it could be one or the other and we cannot determine which bases on available sources. BTW, I've gotten the Raven book and you're right about it not being all that useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) -Vami IV when I moved last summer I ended up with access to a good university library system and a better county library system than the other areas I'd been in. Not the best collection of naval history per se, but I can attempt to get ahold of something if you can't access it.Hog Farm_Talk22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind to point out which source you've add inGiuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiser is? We just only see "Solari" in the text, but don't know which book or what source the "Solari" means.JuneAugust (talk)06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess he meant Soliani - I've corrected the footnotes to that.And Sturm, this is why I switched to using the{{sfn}} templates, so it'd highlight when I typo refs.Parsecboy (talk)11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Get off my porch, you whipper-snapper!" Shaking my cane at the suburban 'yutes'.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the future is now, old man –♠Vamí_IV†♠17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I've been living my whole life in the future!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago,you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forBorodino-class battlecruiser introduced (in 2018): "Construction of the Borodino-class battlecruisers by the Imperial Russian Navy began before World War I, but the war prevented delivery of components ordered from abroad and construction was abandoned. After the Russian Civil War was over in 1922, one ship was considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier, but this was rejected and all four ships were scrapped."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Sturmvogel 66! The article you nominated,CSS Baltic, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "Further reading" section, to the article on this battlecruiser. as I'm unsure if the "Bibliography" is allowed to contain works that are not directly referenced. Some editors seem to get up set over it. Please let me know what is the practice for this project. Matthew Wright has produced two books which discuss HMS New Zealand. I have changed the referencing to make it clear which one. Let me know if anything is wrong and I will fix it.

At a later date I hope to add more information on the construction of the ship, it's world cruise in 1913 and Jellicoe's cruise in 1919.John Prattley (talk)05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the purpose of the Further reading section. Be wary of getting too deep into the weeds; Wikipedia is intended to summarize a ship's history, not provide a mass of minor details. You can see the acceptable level of detail by looking at the other ship articles that areWP:Featured Articles and have been peer reviewed as part of that process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleARA Jujuy you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:ARA Jujuy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofZawed --Zawed (talk)10:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4,Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed byBennyOnTheLoose,Sammi Brie andLee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email.If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges areSturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this up for GAN now, leaning mainly on Bisbee and Still with assists from Silverstone's 1989 work and DANFS. Any thoughts on missing material for GAN purposes? Intended to be an ironclad, but relegated to floating battery status in practice.Hog Farm_Talk22:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed one typo in a link, but you've covered it pretty well. I'll have to check Canney to see if we can resolve contradicting sources like we had to do for Baltic. I'm not really enjoying House of the Dragon right now so this will provide a nice palate cleanser.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)00:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested to see if Canney has anything further to say about the armor - I've read almost all the way through Still's whole book this week, and Still frequently mentions that the Confederates couldn't effectively do anything thicker than 2-inch plate, so I imagine that the armor here is 2 layers of 2-inch plate, but the sources aren't very detailed on the armor.Hog Farm_Talk01:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No nothing useful on the armor, only that they were intended to have four inches. He does have a lot more on the ship's trials that I'd expected (I always have low expectations for CSS ships, though) and confirms that they were indeed diamond hull designs, although modified by the builder. How do you want to handle this? I can either review this now and add the extra info before a joint ACR or work on it before it gets a reviewer as a co-nom and then we wait for that to happen. I'm fine either way.
    • A bigger question is how to treat this ship and her sister. Information is so scanty on both that I think the best treatment would be to consolidate them as the Huntsville-class ironclad with redirects from the former individual articles to avoid simply repeating the same info twice over. Without any operational history we have little to differentiate between the two. I tried to do this before, but didn't follow through enough with amending the articles that somebody reverted me. If you agree with me, we should probably bring this up atWT:SHIPS for discussion first. To avoid issues with the article getting reviewed while still under discussion, I'd quick-fail the article first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)13:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken the shortest route and simply removed the GAN template from the article talk page. I tend to agree with you that the two are probably best covered under the class article - the only real differences noted in Bisbee and Still are the different machinery sources, some differing timetables for parts of the construction, and the fact thatHuntsville shelled Federal forces at Spanish Fort and Fort Blakeley, andTuscaloosa didn't. Given the two had no real service history to speak of, I can't really think of any particular reason why a separate treatment would be preferable. I've removed the GAN for now, so that nobody picks it up.
      • My only real experience with ship class articles isSquib-class torpedo boat, which is probably a bit of a clunker (FWIW, I treatedCSSWasp andCSSHornet like what's been proposed forTuscaloosa - minimal service history, so redirect to the class and have a short description there). Since I lack familiarity with layout/formatting for ship classes, it might be best to treat this one as a co-nom.Hog Farm_Talk18:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'll start the discussion at WT:SHIPS shortly. Class articles are generally more difficult than individual ships articles because it's hard to find the right level of detail when trying to summarize each ship's service, IMO. This is much, much easier if there's no real operational history to deal with. I took a quick look at your Squib class article and Squib's individual article. What you did there is fine, but I'd have folded everything into the class article because there's so little there. I do have to confess that I am influenced in my thinking by Wiki gamesmanship as it would be much easier to get the class article to pass GAN than any of the individual ship articles. I do like forming Good and Featured topics, for all that I have done hardly anything towards that in the last few years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, I did a similar thing withRhein-class monitor for the same reasons.Parsecboy (talk)16:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, that was a quick response! It seems logical to me, but I think things are a little bit different with extant articles. This approach or adding them to missing class articles probably ought to be used for a lot of the other Confederate ironclads for which not a lot of info is available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)16:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between April and June 2022.Peacemaker67 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that theBorodino-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for October 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so atWikipedia:Today's featured article/October 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks!Jimfbleak -talk to me?13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim, I'll see what needs doing shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit to this page is unacceptable and also a direct insult to me; completely removing now nearly a week worth of research and over 12,000 words. Let's take a look at your rude comments shall we:

1. There's no such thing as an Admiralty in Japan

Although the concept of an Admiralty doesn't exist in Japan, it was a historical compromise to use the term itself. An elite group of admirals which lobbied the design department did exist in Japan, however were never formally named or designated an Admiralty. How am I supposed to tell the reader there is an elite group of admirals that is lobbying the design department that is somehow not an admiralty, even though the concept of one was foreign to the Japanese. Therefore the word Admiralty was used to describe a group of elite admirals.

Wiki relies on what the sources tell us, and doesn't make up terms. The Japanese split the duties of the British Admiralty between Naval Ministry and the Naval General Staff, so there's really no case to be made for using that term. In this case you could have called them politically powerful admirals or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. No Page References

I'm sorry, that is a poor excuse to remove close to 12,000 words of new, referenced detail from the whole page. I referenced the whole chapter pertaining to the Super Yamato or Design A-150 from my book source for this page. I no longer have the book to reference since I returned it to the library, hoping that it was done with. Unfortunately due to molesting my edits and completely gutting the page of useful new info for smelly old info of the previous you've turned it back to the toxic swamp of bad information it was before the changes. So, I propose, if you can get that book, maybe you can provide the actual page references yourself if you are such a cite nazi.

This is a featured article which requires all changes to match existing formats, including page numbers for references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Failure to match cite format

Chicago Manual of Style is the source format, correct? Again, a poor excuse to remove 12,000 words from the article based on cite format and completely reject research because it isn't cited exactly the same as whatever you guys on the wiki use.

Did you not notice that the actual cites were author(s) (date), page? Or that there was no space between the punctuation and the cite?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. Poor grammar

Do you know how gravely insulting that is; however, I grant you I was intending to do further edits this morning to correct a few things. Anyway, reverting all 12,000 words over that is a blatant abuse of editorial power and considering you are a cite nazi, you may also be a grammar nazi.

Why the bizarre capitalizations?Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5.Excessive detail

That is a complete and utter bullshit excuse and you know it. Simplicity is nice for a children's article, but this isn't exactly an article meant for children is it. It is meant for plebs and amateur historians to learn more detail about this class of warship. Simply reverting changes for excessive detail ought to get you removed from Wikipedia. Details are there to give more information. Keeping it simple on these pages with out of date information as opposed to the detail of current information (as I had it) is much like keeping humans in the stone age just because they might revolt if they got iron tools.

Some people might consider you a first class editor, but as far as I'm concerned you are a politically fueled grammar and cite nazi out to completely gut peoples changes out of spite. I demand you revert the changes and if you are going to complain and moan about these above things then you can kiss my butt.172.8.197.150 (talk)13:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a hope of retaining your edits on the Yamato article, you'll need to conform to the pre-existing formats as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Sturmvogel 66! i had two questions regardingthis article andthe associated blurb.

• the article body states thatizmail was scrapped in leningrad, and the table of ship data does not mention the ship having been sold for scrap. if this means that the soviet union had scrapped it themselves, would it be more appropriate to state, in the blurb and article lead, that the ships were all "eventuallyscrapped or sold for scrap by theSoviet Union" instead of "eventually sold forscrap by theSoviet Union"?

Clarified it.

• the table of ship data gives a launch date forizmail in late june, contrary to the russian description of the photo used in the blurb, and the launch date noted onthe ship.bsu.by page included under the external links section. is the launch date currently in the table likely the correct date? the article body mentions western sources being incorrect about a number of things, and i noticed that the table cites a western source for the launch dates. if, instead, the earlier date is correct, then i think the caption in the blurb can be modified to "Izmail being launched atBaltic Works", if you feel that that would be appropriate.

dying (talk)13:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McLaughlin uses Russian-language sources so I have confidence in his data.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)01:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A military rank or job title is capitalized when followed by a person's name to form a title, but not when modified.MOS:MILTERMS says "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people", and that section says "For fuller details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Titles of people." The example there (inMOS:JOBTITLES) shows that a modified title is not capitalized: "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." Of course, if not modified by the nationality, it would be changed to "Mao met with President Richard Nixon in 1972.", with "President" capitalized. SoMOS:JOBTITLES takes precedence over the other two abridged sections of the MoS.Chris the speller ^yack15:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)15:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. Congratulations and thank you for your efforts!Hog FarmTalk01:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]