Aye there, 'Sturmvogel 66', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the
Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Ibuki-class armored cruiser
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
My edit was based on what looked to me like a consensus at this discussion. Srnec (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was rehashed on a larger scale here and it was determined that Capitán Prat and others were to be cut from the project's scope. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Nairana
Hi mate, just a note that I haven't forgotten this, and expect to get hold of the Tassie ferry book this week... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, material was spread throughout the book so I decided it was easier to just write it up myself rather than scan and send -- see article and talk... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment: Not "the" range, "a" range and "a" complement, not "the" complement. What's up with these?’
According to Hoyle, an article precedes a noun or noun phrase and determines something definite or indefinite. An indefinite article (a or an) points to nonspecific objects, things or persons. The definite article (the) points to definite objects, things or persons. In my understanding, the statements I made meet the definite article criteria.
I don't think that you've got it quite correct. "The complement of the destroyer was" is perfectly grammatical, which is what I think Hoyle was referring to. But "the destroyer had a complement of" is also grammatical. In the first example, complement is the subject of the sentence, but it's not in the second example, which is why Hoyle phrases things the way that he does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected! Thank you. Pendright (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Design section of Mahan, I agree with you that most of it is better suited in the Mahan-class destroyer article. The section has a number of inline citations, and when I try to delete the section I foul up the notes. Can you help me out? Pendright (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might check out a book called Blood on the Sea: American Destroyers Lost in World War II. It might have some useful stuff for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blood on the Sea appears to devote four pages to Mahan. I ordered a used copy from Amazon – thanks. Pendright (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
824th TD
I think I've finished up the last of your outstanding comments on 824th Tank Destroyer Battalion - anything else you'd like me to have a look at? (I've tracked down a copy of the Gimlette book, which is an interesting travelogue but sadly light on the sort of detail that transfers across easily) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my recent note about the lede with 3-inch towed guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite clear on the problem there - surely the lead should mention it? I've omitted any mention of the early SP organisation in the lead/infobox as it's not clear they ever actually had that equipment other than on paper, but the 3" guns were definitely used from July 43 to March 45, including all but ~six weeks of their time in combat. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'd missed that. Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the March 2013
Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 118 points from 15 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013
The Content Review Medal of Merit
By order of the
Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
re:15-inch Dahlgren from USS Catawba
Hi Sturmvogel 66. Yep, I found it highly unlikely. Not just unlikely that someone would loot the gun, take it to Hong Kong, drop it in the harbour for someone to later recover it and move it into a museum, but, most importantly, that this could all happen without any on-line news coverage at all (granted, news from the 1980s are a bit hard to find on-line, but still, there should be some reference somewhere). It would be one extremely interesting detail, if it could be backed up by a reference, but as it was it looked very dubious. If it could be properly verified, and given some more detail, the how, when and why, it would have made a good hook fact for DYK. Manxruler (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since it would be only the third surviving 15-inch Dahlgren in the world. The other two decorate Ericsson's grave in Sweden.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a note on page 265 of the book The Defences of Macau: Forts, Ships and Weapons Over 450 Years (found it on Google Books), there is a 15-inch Dahlgren at the coastal defence museum in Hong Kong. No info on where it's from though. Apparently Dahlgren guns of various calibres were used in the coastal defence of several colonies in the Far East. Manxruler (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons photos prove that the gun is there, but I'm more concerned about the claim that the gun is connected to Catawba or not. I suppose it's barely possible that the Portuguese bought some Dahlgrens for Macau, but the Brits never would have. And even that is a bit dubious because my book on US Civil War artillery documents sales of 15 and 20-inch Dahlgrens to Peru, but doesn't mention any to Macau or the UK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. Do you think it would be possible to ask the museum in Hong Kong for some info? Manxruler (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so, we'll see if they answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Let's hope they do. Manxruler (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got an email today saying that they'd forwarded to the Museum, so we'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, for the most part, I’ve taken care of the items you mentioned in your Mahan comments of 14 April. BTW, I did get a used copy of Blood On The Sea. Of the four pages devoted to Mahan, only two were relevant and they offered nothing new. Nonetheless, the publication is a good addition to my small, but growing library on Destroyers. Thanks for the hint. Pendright (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iven Mackay
Are you happy with this article now? There hasn't been any comments for a couple of weeks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never responded to a couple of points that I'd made earlier. One's been addressed without me noticing, but the other's still outstanding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? I thought that they had all been resolved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one about using "the" in front of Cabinet, as I posted earlier today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for the fantastic GA review of Arihant-class submarine........I'm proud to announce that it became the first Indian Warfare GA ever!!!..Thanks a lot! TheStrikeΣagle 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to thank me, you earned it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No...your review was very nice.....I learned so much from it! We are planning to get Shivalik-class frigate to GA next...will try to nominate it in some days from now..and we would love your review! TheStrikeΣagle 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend finding a GA-class or better surface ship article to model your own article upon. I don't know of many on modern surface ships, so that may be a problem, but you can still get the rough idea of what's needed from one on a WW2-era warship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I wrote it; it's a great model. However, it doesn't cover electronics and sensors, which a WW2 ship should, so it's a little lacking, although you'd get the basics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend using one of the standard warship references like Jane's Fighting Ships, Combat Fleets of the World, etc. as well as all your journals and newspapers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Shivalik-class frigate for GA..please consider reviewing it........I couldn't add citations like Jane's and CFOTW as you suggested because they are out of my reach...I'm not financially in a position to purchase them nor my internet connection is speed enough to download one! Cheers, StrikeΣagle 09:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion, but have you checked to see if any of your local libraries have copies? Or if you can borrow a copy through something like
I have also nominated INS Shivalik...BTW can you please have a look at INS Sahyadri and INS Satpura...I think they are a tad too short for GA...if not...I would nominate them too..Cheers, StrikeΣagle 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the first mentioned article. Some paragraphs still lack citations. Explain the function of the electronics better (what are their types/purposes, etc.) because I don't have a clue what some of them are. And you'll need coverage of the ship's activities in 2010 and 2011. That sort of thing is usually the hardest info to get for modern warships, but your use of periodicals makes it a lot easier. Dunno when I'll have a chance to formally review it as things are pretty busy for me now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, please tell me which paragraphs those are so that I add citations...Thanks for the quick review..:) Take time..... Cheers, StrikeΣagle 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Nairana (1917)
nominate
) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Russian Battleship Potemkin
Hallo, I've got as far as I can with the GA review of Potemkin. The article needs to do three things in my view to pass the GA: the main one is to cover the legacy of Potemkin - the legend or myth; the inspiration to revolution; and the subsequent Eisenstein film (which oddly is in the lead and the See also but isn't discussed, and it needs to be - how far is it true, what was E. building on, etc. I suggest that would be best in a "Legacy" or similar section.
That indicates also that the See also list needs attention, possibly removal with incorporation of any wanted links in the text - for instance, if the other mutinies inspired or were inspired by Potemkin, then that needs saying, with citations.
And the current "Mutiny" section ends abruptly - well, did the ship sink or didn't it? Clearly it was fit to be towed home three weeks later. The gap needs filling.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with
Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions
) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
First off, I wish to state that I feel collaborative nominations within the Good Article project are an incredibly salutary methodology, one that implements both assured quality and efficacy into the process. This is why, especially regarding articles of immense importance, such as the subject article, I contact prior, prolific editors to the article in order to ascertain whether or not they might wish to participate in a collaborative nomination. This is why I contact you, along with a few others, in order to recruit for a nomination of the above article I am planning. I myself am a minimal contributor to the article, but have always been fascinated with the topic. Would any of you wish to collaborate on this planned nomination? Thanks! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your invitation, I must regretfully decline it because I don't have the time available right now to work on it. Contact me again in several months and I might be available to help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, but I was planning on nominating the article. I wish to inform you that if time becomes available to you to work on this project, feel free to jump in the fray. Thanks again! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MiG-3
Hello Sturmvogel,
I'm aware the change I made to the MiG-3 page is contradictory to the initial position of the article. However, no references were provided to back up the claim that the MiG-3 was less manoeuvrable than the Bf 109, while the test pilot interviewed by 1C Studios (which is a trustworthy source) has first hand experience and claims the opposite. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wTZjYGyl-4 ] He also mentions the reason for this at the end of the video (smoother stick than the Bf 109). Keep in mind that wing load isn't everything, the FW-190 for example often outturned planes with a lower wing load.
I hope we can find more sources to back up either finding.
Tervan (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look through Gordon, et al, but the key determinate may be at what altitude was the pilot talking about. Above 5000 meters, the Soviet pilot may well be correct, but, unfortunately, most combat on the Eastern Front took place at lower altitudes and he never engaged a 109E at lower altitudes. I don't know, but everything that I remember about the MiG-3 called it a pig maneuverability-wise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He called the MiG-3 "more manoeuvrable than the I-16 [by a wide margin] at any altitude", and the I-16 is regarded as being slightly more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 Emil. He also mentioned it is hard to fly at low altitudes though, so maybe the generally inexperienced WWII pilots had difficulty pushing the plane to its limits. Let me know if you find more sources about this! Tervan (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the video, but there were no subtitles so I don't know what he was saying as I don't speak Russian. Was he talking about flying the replica with the Allison engine? If so then his opinion is of no relevance whatsoever to the version of the very heavy, but powerful, AM-35 that was flown during WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can enable subtitles by clicking the subs icon on the video. However, you're right. This particular MiG-3 is "65 red", which is one of the Alison equipped replicas. --Tervan (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even if there's an AM-35A engine in existence as they didn't make that many before switching over to the AM-38 for the Il-2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Hague Convoy Database
Hi! I'm reviewing Talk:USS Leary (DD-158)/GA1 right now, and the article employs Andrew Hague Convoy Database as a source. I saw that there are at least four Royal Navy ship GAs you wrote using the same, so I'm assuming the source is a WP:RS, but could you please let me know, for future reference, what makes such a website a reliable source (I'm still fairly new to the GAN reviews, so I'm sorry if this should be obvious to me). Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is that Hague is a published author on that topic; I've got a couple of his books in my library. So he's presumed to know what he's talking about. That said, he doesn't cite his sources which means that he really can't be used for FACs as they require highly-reliable sources, which most Internet sources aren't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar question regarding reliability of another source in the Talk:Robert Surcouf/GA1 GAR, so could I trouble you to comment there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were interested in trimming out Battle of Kursk article. Gunbirddriver is also interested in seeing what can be done about the size of the article. I think your suggest for trimming the article is very practicable, and I expanded on it (See the talkpage), but I think it can still use more ideas. What are your thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most unexpected, but thank you. Happy to help out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wipe out
Much obliged for your Mahan comments, but somehow they have been wiped clean from my talk page.Pendright (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever lost on Wiki. Go to you View History button at the top of the page and try a couple of saved versions around the time that I made my comments or shortly afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to retrieve anything! Pendright (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect that people will work through the entire list in the order laid out, as you pointed out people will work on whatever tickles their interest regardless of whether or not its a current project in someone else's portfolio or not. As phases change, or as work narrows in one particular area, I would expect (in fact I've been anticipating this) that editors will either arrive to work on the new material or drift away do the absence of old material. I also suspect that other projects (like WikiProject Biography) will take an increased notice of OMT when major work shifts to the phase most associated with their stated goals. One thing you and Ed both missed here too is that the material in the Phase II-V lists for OMT is still somewhat incomplete in that there are more detailed areas to include (weapons depots, shipyards, etc) and hashing that out will be part of the task we will face as people come in to work on newer material.
As for battlecruisers of the world, I am glad to have been informed of this since I was unaware of this development. I'll see about adding this to the op-ed at some point tomorrow or the next day, but right now its 4:30AM here and I'm exhausted, so this ship is heading to port for the night :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it's just that your draft gave more the impression that people would be working on stuff in lockstep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulation for the new FA. May I ask if you have another Italian battleship FAC to work at?--Demostene119 (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not immediately, no, but I do plan on working on the individual ship articles for Conte di Cavour and Guilio Cesare sometime over the summer to bring them up to GA status or better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mahan article
I was never able to retrieve your last set of comments. Although I did get a brief glance at them before they vanished. I did modifiy the article based on what I could remember, which was not much. I changed some wording in the lead; got rid of the section you said belonged in the class article (but used a bit of it at the end of General characteristics); tinkered some with complement; changed the text on the extent to which Mahan was refitted, and that’s about it. For my part, I’d like to continue. But if that’s not possible, let me thank you for your ton of help and invaluable insights. Pendright (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been kinda busy of late and haven't been able to check out your article since April. All of my comments are visible on your talk page, so I'm not sure what you think has been list. I vaguely remember commenting on the article's talk page; have you checked there to see if there's something there? I'll try to look over the article sometime in the next couple of weeks, but no promises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever time permits, will work for me. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto
Hi! Since I'm aware of the Project Majestic Titan and your contributions in the field, I thought to drop you this as a heads-up: I'm currently developing the Battle of Šibenik article which is in itself unrelated to any battleship, but I stumbled upon information that AA guns originally installed on the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto were reused by Yugoslav People's Army (or possibly navy: the source is ambiguous in that respect since the coastal artillery was normally operated by the navy but the source specifically cites its commander by name and rank identifying him as a part of the army) as a part of the Žirje Island coastal artillery battery. I added a short passage on that in the battleship's article for future reference. In addition, there's this newspaper article (containing a photo of one of the guns) on refurbishment of two of the guns (all 12 were removed after 1995 from the island) which are expected to be returned to the now disused battery site as a part of a museum. Contents of information panels designed for the museum may be found here.
I did not research how Yugoslavia came in possession of the guns though. I only assume those might have been a part of Italian war reparations, but I have no solid information on that. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Thanks for letting me know about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nagato-class battleship
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! I need an advice re defining battle location in the Action of 1 November 1944 article. Freivogel source used in the article specifies a set coordinates indicating that those are reported by British sources (page 65). This is all nice but the same source provides a map of where the wrecks are found (located in 1999 and 2000) (page 51), and while the coordinates are not specified in the map, it is possible to determine that those are not in line with those reported on p.65. The two sites are only 10 km apart, but I'm wondering which set of coordinates should the article report in the coord template - those specified by the Freivogel prose or a point in between the three wrecks? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd compromise and use the British coordinates, while mentioning in a note or something that the wrecks are not at those locations, possibly due to drifting while sinking, etc. If you actually have coordinates of the wrecks, provide them, otherwise don't bother if all you've got is a more general map.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for researching this and for your good wishes. I knew that the generation of boilers before the Kampon models were designed by a Japanese admiral, but never got around to looking in to it any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temp
°C this is from the book: Gröner, Erich; Jung, Dieter (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945 [Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe, 1815–1945] 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. p. 72.
. In the Russian-language sources, too Celsius.
The Germans have never measured in Fahrenheit.--Inctructor (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
USS Monitor
Aye there Sturmvogel 66,
Perhaps I was too hasty upgrading the rating on the USS Monitor. If it is not fully referenced or fully complete could you give me a brief summary as to what exactly is missing? It seemed pretty well covered. What is the most important topic that is missing? Perhaps I can write it up and provide citations. Thanks for looking out. (Add: Wow! I just got a load of all the awards you've received. Just wanted to say thanks for your GREAT efforts.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph needs a cite and it's lacking info on the the memorials and display in the Mariner's Museum, etc. This is going to be one of my summer projects and I plan to take it to GAN and eventually FAC as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd love to help. My interests are primarily in Early American/British and Civil War naval history and over the years I have collected and outlined a good number of sources. If you are wanting for other and/or alternative sources, you might want to check out the bibliography I've put together: (
Civil War section. So large I'm thinking about splitting it off to a separate page. Hope it helps in the effort. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Help would be great, although I have a few questions for you: I think the Civil War portal is useful for these ships, but I question why the general US military portal is useful. By your logic that would be true for every ship/Army unit/fighter squadron, etc. and I just don't see that. The general military portal is more useful for things higher up the food chain, IMO, like numbered air forces/fleets/armies, etc. And, while I like what you've done with the bibliography page, and, yes, you probably should split off the Civil War books, adding a link to it in the see also section seems a bit redundant when the most relevant books for that ship will be listed in the bibliography at the bottom of the page. But maybe that's just me as I'm not a big fan of See also sections.
There are a couple of things that you can do that would be very helpful in the short term. Create a Further reading section after the bibliography and move every book that's not actually used for a citation there and start to convert every book that's still in the bibliography into the cite book format. BTW, pages are not used for books unless you're using a chapter from a compilation like Battle and Leaders or a journal article.
I think that we're pretty good on the description of the Monitor and her background, so I think that we need to focus on what the Monitor did during the actual battle, what she did after the battle, her sinking, rediscovery and recovery, as well as memorials, and all that other stuff at the end of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I see you've already trimmed the Portal links: Yes, what you say makes well enough sense. (i.e.higher up on the food chain - haha!) Have added a 'Further reading' section and have moved one unused source -- am checking for others. re: Link to
Bibliography of early American naval history: Well, it's redundant inasmuch as it contains sources used on the Monitor page, but it still has many that are not that very likely may be useful for further info/citations, so for now it's best to keep it imo. Last, I'm not quite clear on this: "pages are not used for books unless... " Are you referring to the Cite book parameter '|pages=123'? Last I have added cites and a source for Delamater's (noting he is from NYC) advice to Bushnell to consult Ericsson and for assurances of the floatability of the Monitor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I think that you'd added |pages=xxx to a couple of books and I just wanted to tell you that it's not generally necessary. OK about the bibliography, I'm not fond of the link, but you do have a point. Just be sure to update it whenever you split out the Civil War books into their own page. Thanks for starting the further reading section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I need a bit of a practical advice over at the
HMS Aldenham (L22). One source (Green) here claims she took part in bombardment of El Daba, Egypt with RN destroyers Croome, Hursley and Eridge. Another (Kemp) claims here, p.192 exactly the same minus Aldenham. Is any of those two sources to be trusted more than the other or should the article note that the sources differ on that point? I tried looking for a third source, but had no luck with that. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Jurgen Rohwer, the Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945, says that only Aldenham and Eridge bombarded El Daba. This [1] is off by a month and mentions the other two so I'm more inclined to go with Rohwer as I've found him to be very reliable. If you need the full cite for the book, you can pull if off the library page on my userpage. It's page 191 if you want to cite it. Can you get the Mason book? That ought to be the best source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have no access to the Mason book. I'll use the Rohwer source though, thanks. Kudos for the 400th GAR taken up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel, thanks for uploading and including that great photo of Monitor's gun and turret mechanics. Looking at the replicas, they must have been beautiful to behold in their day. I'm not clear on something. Are the gun and gun-mount in the picture also replicas? The gun looks restored and real. If not did you manage to get any photos of the actual gun, etc? I think the article would do well if it had a small gallery (4-6) of such photos, perhaps in a gallery section, at or near the bottom of the page. If you have the photos I can manage the gallery mark up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're replicas, the real guns were in preservation tanks when I was visiting, although I think that they're out now. Galleries are generally discouraged, although I'm tempted to add one as there are still one or two more pictures that I'd like to add. Let's hold off for now; we may be able to add enough text to make more room for photos. I've received the Clancy book and he's going into a lot of detail on the turret recovery in 2002, though I'm not sure how much detail will make it into the article. Haven't gotten very far yet so we'll see about post-recovery details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, galleries are not usually found in ship's articles, but then this article might be the classic exception, given the ship, the famous battle, the turning point in history for warships and of course the rediscovery and many available photos of the artifacts. I'd love to see photos of the restored guns if they exist. I'll search around and see what I can come up with. Another option for the photos would be to contain them in a collapsible box, with information in the captions of each photo much the way I've done here (using only one collapsible bar of course). Something to think about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also might want to check out John Broadwater's (Monitor Marine Sanctuary Director) Book which I've added to the bibliography and have referenced in the Monitor article some days ago. It's available for partial viewing and many pages are indeed available for viewing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Claw
Hi, I see that you are interested in the history of the Cold War and I wonder if you could help me copy edit an article from the very start of it, Operation Claw. I have written the original article in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and I translated it into English, but as I am not a native speaker I am sure there are parts that need to be corrected. I try to have it look ok before I upload it, so I did the translation on a sub-page of my user pages on Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators, I am very pleased to present to you this A-class medal with swords in recognition of your fine work developing the USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, and HMS Warrior (1860) articles to A-class status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed your comment here about sometimes changing the variant of English if it doesn't seem too big of a deal. I have probably done the same myself in the past. We are not really supposed to do this; can I suggest in future if you are doing this and it seems uncontroversial (perhaps because of
strong national ties to a topic?) that you make a note in article talk of what you are doing and why? This makes it easier for others to see when and why it was changed in the future. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll try to remember whenever I do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for French destroyer Espingole
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just to let you know, I've got the review page watched, so I'll be able to help out with reviewers' comments and such. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, appreciate the help. And feel free to revise it as needed. I cleaned some more problems today before I nom'd it, so it may still have some (hopefully minor) issues that a fresher pair of eyes might see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note.
Boletus luridus
.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't heard from you. I know you already told me you weren't interested in this dispute anymore even before I took it to DRN, but can you spare us some of your time to give your say on the matter? EyeTruth (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten, just been focused on other stuff for the nonce. Since the only thing that matters for the Cup is if you have enough points to make it into the next round, true gamesmanship would be to cause your opponent to score as many points as possible if you already think that he'll have enough points to make it into the next round, thus depleting his stockpile of articles. I'm sorta figuring that 500-600 points ought to suffice, but I expect that I'll need to get enough articles ready for FAC in the final round that I'll exceed that number handily. So not so silly as it might seem at first glance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already exceeded my last year's performance - I'll be happy to get into the finals. I just write and work on things, hoping to get enough together to get into the next round. Take the time you need, I just didn't want you to have not seen it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and I know that I don't really have a good chance of winning it this year, despite appearances. My time for writing is going to be severely limited for the next 4-6 weeks, which means that I really won't have enough time to build up a big enough stockpile to be competitive for the final round. Still it's a good motivator, which I need when I have to build 40+ item lists, which I really dislike.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precious again
Courageous, Glorious, Furious
Thank you for covering historic
OK, I stand corrected, the Texas wasn't a pre-dreadnought. But she wasn't "the first American battleship" either, since she was preceded by ironclad and wooden battleships. So what was she? First steel battleship? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ships of the line weren't referred to as battleships by the USN or by very few navies in general. And there were no ironclad battleships built by the US, although the term "battleship" is starting to gain popular currency when ships of the line were converted into steam ships. If you need a hard and fast definition which really wasn't in contemporary use, she was a turret ship, but all of my references just call her a plain battleship, not even a pre-dreadnought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. "Battleship" is simply an abbreviation for "line of battle ship.". According to OED the word goes back to the 1790s. The Battleship article refers to wooden battleships. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the origin of "battleship", but navies didn't use the term officially.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple. See Russian Warships in the Age of Sail, p. 22.; The Age of the Ship of the Line, p. 4; The Sail and Steam Navy List, All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815-1889 which doesn't even use the term for the ships that it covers, preferring to use the "rate" system, as do many other sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you want to restrict "Battleship" to its formal usage in navies. Fair enough, but we need to make it clear that's what we're doing. Most readers define "battleship" much more broadly, and if you just say "the first American battleship" you're not being sufficiently clear. Also, you might want to look at Battleship with an eye to making it more consistent with this definition. While you're at it, look at pre-dreadnought Battleship which defines that term more broadly than you do. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'm actually quoting either Reilley and Scheina or Friedman, so it's not just my opinion, but I'm moving and don't have either to hand at the moment to check. Didn't both citing because it's not a controversial statement, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I'm perfectly fine with your usage and I'm not insisting that you provide citations. But it has to be clear to the reader exactly how you're using the word. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you told me your definition of "Battleship". By "your" I mean one that makes sense to you, it doesn't have to be original. (Citation not required.)--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
You created a LOT of German World War II destroyer articles. Howicus (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I just need to get back to them and get them all up to GA status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing
The Content Review Medal of Merit
By order of the
Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
Hi, I've been working my way through Laser Brain's comments at FAC and I think I am close to finishing. As I don't have easy access to the source, can you suggest a slight expansion to "Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders
bankrupt before a grant of £50,000 was awarded to keep them solvent.<ref>{{harvnb|Lambert|2010|pages=34, 37}}</ref>"? LB was asking what sort of indecision. Was it design changes? Changes to the specifications? Both? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for working the article over for me. I'm in the process of unpacking after a move so it may be a few days before I can dig up the appropriate books. IIRC, I don't recall Lambert getting into details, but I'll see what I can find between him and Wells.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's a real pleasure to work on such an interesting article. Anything you can find; most of my sources are on WW1 and WW2 ships, other than the Padfield one I worked into the article today. I don't think there's a terrific rush. --John (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it. It's always good to get an opinion from someone who's at least familiar with ships when two knowledgeable editors clash over appropriate levels of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would rather err on the side of being too detailed rather than not detailed enough in these articles. We tend to forget that general readers may not have the depth of knowledge to understand the material unless we tell them. --John (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Here's another one: "Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the Armstrong guns, which had not proved successful in use, were removed and her armament was upgraded to the latest rifled muzzle-loading guns." Was it a one-for-one replacement? I seem to recall it may not have been. If this is in your source I think it is worth mentioning. --John (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd messed up the dates of the refit so it wasn't as easy to make the association as it should have been. But that's fixed now. Got a couple of questions for you about Padfield. In the last sentence of the armour section you added a bit about ramming, but the problem is that the ship's knee bow made it impossible for Warrior to actually ram an opponent. What does Padfield actually say about this? I'm thinking that maybe this should be moved into the general description. And the ship's propeller wasn't vulnerable because it was completely underwater. I've reworked some of the bits that Laser brain complained about, can you look over my changes and see if they make sense? BTW, I plan to nominate Russian battleship Potemkin after this is finished, if you'd like to take a look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look out the exact quotes in a while, I just woke up. Padfield says that the ship had a strengthened stem to allow it to ram, but that its extreme length made this impractical. Regarding the prop, he compares it with Gloire and mentions this as an area in which the French ship was superior. I suppose the shaft could still be damaged if unprotected and above the waterline. Love to have a look at Potemkin. Later today. --John (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warrior also lacked handiness in manoeuvre because of her extreme length, and this was considered a disadvantage as the old galley tactic of ramming had come back into fashion now that warships had regained the power of free movement denied them in their sailing years. Indeed, the Warrior had a strengthened stem for this purpose.
Peter Padfield, Battleship, p24
The one vital point in which [Gloire's] design was more effective was the complete protection for rudder and screw; the British ship with counter stern and no armour at all was dangerously exposed.
Did you get a chance to look out that source yet? Quite apart from the article, you've whetted my appetite to find out now... --John (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm visiting family right now and won't return home for a couple of days, but I did check before I left and Lambert shows the propeller, shaft, engine and boilers completely underwater. So I read Padfield's comments as applying to the steering only, which was totally exposed. Lambert also says that Watts steered a middle course between factions that wanted a ram bow and the traditionalists who wanted the traditional bow profile by reinforcing the stem and providing an overhanging knee bow that vitiated against the possibility of any successful ram. I had a section explaining Warrior's lack of manoeuvrability up earlier, but somebody seems to have removed it and I'm wondering if we should restore it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be great. I was mainly thinking of Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders
bankrupt before a grant of £50,000 was awarded to keep them solvent. though which is the last challenged statement we haven't addressed at FAR. See what you can do. I'm about to move house myself so you have my sympathy. --John (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Just addressed it now. Started to expand the restoration section, which may well need a copyedit once I'm done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy moving these last few days, but I'll try to get to them once I unpack the appropriate boxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I know how that goes. Getting ready for another move at the end of this year. Fun...not. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Kursk DRN report
Sturmvogel, I cannot find the DRN report discussion being referred to, even though I did make a number of comments there earlier. All I can get to is some sort of brief outline. Is there a link to get to whatever it is happened after I left? Sorry to bother you with this one. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's in a flip down menu. Click on it! Okay, I got it. But reading through there I do not see the support for Blitzkrieg that EyeTruth is claiming, nor do I see a definitive conclusion that would warrent his inserting the phrase into the article again. Okay - back to the salt mines. Oh, I mean talk page... talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marceau
Hey Sturm - I went about as far as I could with the Feron Warship article and what I could scrounge from Google Books. I'm guessing since you added them, you might be able to add some details from the Gaulois article and Gille's book. If you have the time and inclination, see what you can do. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a stab at it next week sometime once I'm back home. Should we rename it French ironclad Marceau, first?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking about that, since the class article is at "ironclad". I'll do that now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you just love it when sources disagree with each other as just about everybody disagrees about the armament. Gille even disagrees with himself on the number of 65 mm guns between his summary table and his detailed description of the armament. I'll probably go with the latter since it describes where the guns are located. Once I'm done I'll send it up for a B-class review, but I'd prefer to wait until the end of the month for the GAN so it will count for the final round of the Cup, if you don't mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rhys-Davids
I have time if you are ready to complete it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be able to look at it in a few days. Please look at the comments that I left last time and make the necessary changes before I look at it again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, moved your draft into the upcoming issue here, and borrowed your 2010 Wikicup award as an image. If you'd like to pick a different image, or want to edit the text (I only italicised your section names and fixed a typo) then pls feel free, but I would like to try and despatch it before midnight GMT (tomorrow morning Sydney time). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Very impressed with your fine work on ships. Keep up the great work and congrats on the FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sturmvogel. Wats up. Your vote is needed in the Kursk talkpage. So this time around Nick-D has suggested that a poll on the suggested wordings would be the best way to avoid the whole drama and reach a conclusion. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK. CHeers. EyeTruth (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Naval history
, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
restoration
work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.
This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.
Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
A beer for you!
Nice work on
[majestic titan] 05:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
Aaah, I see you are busy with GAs - well done. A couple of days ago you reviewed
Daniel Scott (harbour-master) and raised points about the tunnel below the prison. I have tweaked the article and recorded this at the DYK page. Would you take to re-look at it when time permits. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
A barnstar for you! (Warrior)
The Original Barnstar
For your work on HMS Warrior (1860). I really enjoyed working on it with you, and I look forward to working on more with you in the future. John (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you kindly, sir. Thanks for working so hard on improving the article. Hope your move is going well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awful, but it looks like the worst is over. Just unpacking now, and very sporadic Internet. Keep well. --John (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least the worst is over with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about that?
Are you familiar with these editors: User:Ranger Steve, User:EyeSerene, User:EnigmaMcmxc? I thought I was pretty reasonable in the recent debate that lasted some three months, but I must tell you that whenever I read your responses I was always impressed with your ability to make a sound point, your willingness to concede on matters that were not essential, and your readiness to make allowances for others. Then I happened to be doing a little research and read through this. It turns out there are a quite a number of seasoned editors with a broad base of knowledge, great balance and tremendous patience. I’m a bit of a potato farmer in comparison, but I have been happy to have a chance to work with you. Tip of the hat!
Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments, but I've had my own tiffs with various editors where I may not have been so reasonable, though not, I hope, to the level exhibited by Blaablaa in your diff. I know that I have a quick temper, so I try not to respond when it's running hot; there's rarely any real urgency about anything on Wiki so there's really no need to jump right into a heated discussion. I also learned a while back that you pretty well have to compromise on Wiki as you have no means to force your opposing editor into doing anything he doesn't want to do until enough other editors agree with you that you can declare a consensus has been formed that overrules your opponent. So I try to choose my fights carefully. Sometimes you and your opponent have such fundamentally different ways of how to cover a topic that you can both be talking past each other and misunderstanding each other's points, so it's always good to ask for outside opinions because you might actually be wrong, or at least misguided. It's important to remember that every editor is equal here, regardless of any specialized experience, learning or academic credentials; that's hard to do when you place more weight for whatever reason on a particular author/source while your opponent does the same for a different author/source. Forex, EyeTruth places a lot of weight on Clark while I don't, based on a couple of academic reviews that I've read. Despite all these potential issues, there are some great people here to work with, don't let yourself get discouraged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Good Articles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 13:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy
nominate
) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Defence-class ironclad
nominate
) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Pennsy-class article
I am in the process of revising the articles on US battleships commissioned 1912-23. One of my primary goals is to put information on armament and propulsion refits in the table where it is called to the user's attention. I don't want users to think that these ships started WW2 in their as-built configuration. I do agree that this information also needs to be in the body of the article; however, I think that this "buries" the information.
I apologize if I have disturbed your talk archives by my reply method; this is my first reply to another user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobDuch (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I prefer to respond on the talk page where the discussion started, but this is fine, just don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes or hit the signature button above. I understand what you want to do, but you need to understand that we already get complaints that ship infoboxes are too long and there have even been proposals to hide them entirely. That's why we've generally compromised on giving the infoboxes with just as built data. For ships that were thoroughly reconstructed between the wars, I've sometimes added another infobox showing just the differences so avoid needless duplication. One example is
WP:OMT that you might find of interest and where we hash out a lot of these sorts of details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting. I've been avidly data-mining military reference books, especially naval, since I was 10 (and I'm now over 50) and my usual approach is to simply look something up in the table. However, I've only been editing Wikipedia a few weeks. I saw that the infobox on the Penn-class page was hidden, and I found that a hindrance to my usual approach. I personally am quite good at finding what I want in the middle of large amounts of data, but I recognize that others might not be, so I'll try to keep infoboxes reasonable in the future. I went to the OMT page and pulled up the user list but couldn't figure out how to add my name to it (I'm such a noob). I started with the Wyoming-class through Nevada-class because their articles were of respectable length, though uneven quality. I am hoping to make the Tennessee- and New Mexico-class articles more informative than they currently are. Anyway, I'll concentrate on other pages than the Pennsylvania-class for now.RobDuch (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rob, welcome to OMT. I've been working on most of the first-generation US dreadnoughts (in addition to other things) recently, so I'd welcome your help with the Wyoming class page. I can probably also lend a hand with the other US dreadnoughts if you need it. You can find the work list here, so if you'd like, you can add your name to the articles you plan on improving (it helps collaboration since it's easier to tell who's working on what).
As for the infoboxes, the general consensus is as Sturmvogel describes. The problem is, most ships are rebuilt or modernized throughout their careers, and so trying to put all of that information into the infobox becomes excessive. This is especially true for cases like the Bismarck-class battleships, since two ships already had slightly different characteristics as originally built, and Tirpitz's AAA battery and radar outfit were continually improved over the course of the war. The same is true for the American standard battleships - the Wyomings in particular, once you add in the wide array of anti-aircraft guns carried by Wyoming as a gunnery training ship. When the box becomes too cluttered, it tends to confuse general readers. One thing we need to remember when writing articles is that, by and large, the people reading them won't have a clue about these ships. We're here for them as much as we're here for the specialist readers. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've been using the as built stats for the infoboxes, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's no reason why we couldn't pick the stats for some other significant date, provided that the main body covers these changes in detail. This last is key as everything in the infoboxes needs to be cited to something in the main body, most especially all the FA, A-class and GA-class articles for which it's a requirement. And MOS says that you can't cite the entire infobox separately, so that needs to be fixed wherever that's been done already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we'll need to define what FA, A, GA, and MOS are. ;-) FA, A, and GA are article assessment levels—you can see a list of them
[majestic titan] 19:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95
Hi! Thanks for assessment of the
Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 article. I have added the missing cites now (originally the cite found at the table head was meant to cover the contents). Could you please have another quick look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. I didn't even notice the cite in the header. Generally I only use those if everything in the table uses that cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess you're right to do so - I'll use that referencing style too from now on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kawachi-class battleship
Some time ago you told me BTW, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from fixing these trivial issues yourself. I accept this as a sarcasm and idea to "go away". For sure: then and now I am able to do this. But I prefer translate your really good articles (no sarcasm - something about half of my GA articles on pl.wiki are yours). And sometime I want to educate peple, because then I will have less work. Your`s Kawachi-class battleship (if there is something like "your article on wiki) don`t pass "ferret test". Not all converts with inches have |0. For example "The shell of the 4.7-inch (120 mm)" - its 199 if you will convert by hand. And in my personal opinion all such sentence as "The design was then revised with the turrets in the hexagonal layout using the same 45-caliber 12-inch guns " should be also converted.
Last but not least - thank you very much for
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy/archive1. That`s my next target to translate to pl.wiki. PMG (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In my previous response, I wasn't being entirely sarcastic. I think that we just have differing standards as to how often a conversion is necessary, so I'm not willing to spend the extra time to convert things more than once, no matter how long the article or list is. So feel free to add additional conversions if you feel it's necessary. That said, if I failed to provide a conversion when I should have by my standards, feel free to point it out and I'll fix it. Just remember that no conversion is necessary on first use if the weapon is linked, only on the second. Remember how the conversion template works; it goes by significant digits so that 4.7 inches goes to 120 mm, which is really close to the real conversion of 119 as you correctly noted. But also remember the difference between nominal caliber and real caliber. I know of a lot of 120 mm guns, but zero 119 mm guns, even though the latter is more correct; maybe people do that because it's easier to say and type out, I don't know. Similarly, German 150 mm gun are actually 149 and some change in bore diameter, but are officially designated as 15 cm guns.
As for the Kawachi-class article, I converted 12 inches in the first paragraph of the Background section, I really don't think that readers need it converted again in the following paragraph. If you feel differently, you are free to add it yourself.
I'm glad that you like my articles and that they've been helpful for you for the .pl wiki. It's nice to know that someone is paying attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Japanese battleship Settsu
nominate
) 00:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Re:HMS Grasshopper
That'll be great - I'll stick it on my watchlist so if any queries come up regarding the sources I used then I'll be able to answer them. Miyagawa (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Japanese battleship Kawachi
nominate
) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Japanese ironclad Kongō
nominate
) 00:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Kongō-class ironclad
I had just approved your DYK nomination for this article when I realised that the image in the hook was not the same as the one in the article. Would you like to put this right informally by either adding the image to the article or by changing the image attached to the hook to the one actually used in the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have taken no notice of the above request and because the DYK is now in the prep area, I have added the image to the article myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see your request.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Saberwyn's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for Kawachi-class battleship
nominate
) 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Kongō-class ironclad
nominate
) 04:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
INDEX
Hello
Do you have idea why in this edit there is INDEX below last template? This page is in main space so its (probably) automaticly indexed. I am asking because here there is quite a lot of warships. PMG (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I appreciate the reviews of the two gold pieces. Thanks again. I will make a point of returning the favor and reviewing one or two of yours!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to thank me; your work deserved the promotions. If you want to review any of mine, I wouldn't object, but that's really not necessary. I've reviewed some of your coin articles at FAC and knew that not a whole lot of work would be needed on my part.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there
Hi Sturmvogel, your contributions to our project have been exemplary. I was wondering if you might wish to run for an RfA. If you do, it would be a privilege to nominate you. Thanks. WifioneMessage 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are very kind, but I prefer to focus on content creation rather than admin drama.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Access to the admin tools may assist you in specific ways during content creation too; from FAs to GAs to DYKs, you may from time to time be able to put the tools to productive use and for the benefit of this project. If you change your mind about the admin bit. do leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. WifioneMessage 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK)
eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup
.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
The N3's are more accurately described as developments of the super dreadnaught, in that they were derived from the combat experiences of the QE and Revenge class during the proceeding war. Also the link I gave leads directly to that section, to save the reader wading throughout the entire article. I have redlinked the 1914 U4 design concept. If we had an article on that, the lineage of design would be clearer. Cheers
Superdreadnought is an obsolete term after the end of WWI and wasn't actually used much by the RN proper; it was much more a journalistic term as it has a bit of a fuzzy definition. And the design evolution is almost directly from the G3 battlecruisers which bore almost no relation to any previous design. The G3 reflected the lessons of the war, but it was a clean design to maximize the amount of armor, speed and weight of armament. The novel armament layout was necessary to shorten the length of the armored citadel and save weight that could be used elsewhere for speed or number/size of guns. The U4 was the baseline design, but was heavily modified over the next couple of years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cheers for the informative response coming from a real expert. I think a U4 article would be good. It would cover a missing link in Brit battleship evolution. I have redlinked it in mainspace. I am plucking up courage (its scary) to submit my first articles. WW2 Brit and commonwealth field rations. 3 articles. I would like to have a crack at creating U4. I need mentoring and advice on article creation though. Respect.
To be honest, the easiest thing to do is to copy the format of an existing article that is already rated GA, A-class or FA. The N3 and G3 articles might help you how to figure out what to do with U4, although I honestly don't have much material on that design so I don't know how much specific help I can be. Have you seen
WP:OMT, a group of guys who work on BB/BC articles? You can ask there for help/advice/guidance or you can ask me if you'd prefer. Don't start out too ambitious with ships, it's far easier to do an article for a ship that had a short life than to do something like one of the QEs that fought in two very busy wars. Also saves money on getting the necessary references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
U4 would be great for that as it was a paper design. Could start it out as a stub naybe and develop it over time. Any queries I would dircet at you, though I will also approach the team that you suggested. I would only ask essential stuff, so would not burn up your time. Your nautical library is a great resource of itself. Cheers mate
Yes, while I have a really good library, I have very little on the U4 design, which would limit the amount of info in the article. And may even make it non-noteworthy if sufficient information can't be found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not at all sure that the design was really significant in any major way because a quick look through my library found very little. And I'd rather have no article at all than one that will remain a stub forever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lexington/Battle of Wake Island
Hi Sturmvogel, I saw you reverted my edits to USS Lexington (CV-2). I made these edits because while I saw links in the article to Wake Island I saw none to the Battle of Wake Island, and I thought these links would be helpful. Am I missing something? Thanks. Spinner145 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to the battle under the word "siege" in the lead paragraph.
WP:Overlink says a term only should be linked once per article, optionally, once in the lead and again the main body. If you want to add a link in the main body, I won't complain, but earlier you'd linked it twice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
OK thanks for the explanation, but I don't see the first link you're talking about. The only use of "siege" in the article is "besieged" in the second paragraph of the lead, where you removed the link I created. I'm not trying to make an issue of this or anything, just want to avoid making unconstructive edits, esp. to a featured article. Thanks again. Spinner145 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was in there originally and didn't realize that you'd added it. I've restored it. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturm, I finally got around to responding to your GAN review. Figured I ought to let you know. Thanks again for waiting on me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured out your editing pattern during the semester well enough to wait for you. No problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, while trying to dig up that article on Dresden, I stumbled on this scanned WI article on Union monitors and their turrets - don't know if you're aware of it, but thought you might find it useful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got that issue and I used when I wrote about the Milwaukee-class monitors. Thanks for looking out for me, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give a quick check to the newly added image to this DYK, and if it's okay (and everything else is; I did make the change you requested to the article's lede), give it the appropriate approval icon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AJ Savage
I recently placed a request for a Class B-assessment of the Mahan-class destroyer article I’ve been working on. I saw your
AJ Savage article there, and I decided to read it. After skimming though the first paragraph of the Design and development section, I observed the word that was used five separate times. If it was by design, accept my apology. If it was not, then maybe I’ve repaid you for some of the past help you’ve given me. Pendright (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What word are you referring to? I don't pretend to be perfect, it's very easy to become blind to your own prose mistakes because you stop reading what's in front of you, only seeing what you meant to say. So, no, I don't have any problem with anyone who points out a problem in any of my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word is that, which was stated in my initial post. I merely pointed out, in good faith, my observation of the number of times the word that was used in the paragraph - nothing more, nothing less.
With that aside, might you consider taking one more look at USS Mahan (DD-364)? Pendright (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's helpful to put quote marks around words that are being discussed to help identify them. OK, I'll look it over. I'll try to look it over, but no promises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 27 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone an edit of yours
My dear Sturmvogel, I've undone your edit at Iowa-class battleship. Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines nor Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide say that cites should not be in the infobox. What Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guidedoes say is that "Citations do not need to be provided in the infobox if the information is repeated in the body of the article and cited there (my italics)", and at a glance, at least some of the information and cites you removed from the article are not in the text. The ones that I tested are the cost per ship and the displacement, but I'm guessing there will be others. Losing those cites is damaging to the article.
I agree that infoboxes look smarter if the cite is in the text, but I don't think that's the case here. If I'm wrong, just go and revert my undo - I trust your judgement. Shem (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted, stating that "All info in (sic) cited in the main body" - but I can't even find (for example) the cost per ship in the text, let alone a cite for it. Shem (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the
I have a question on fate. According to all my sources and what I find in the internet her commander Joachim Wünning was killed on 22 September 1944. The article states that the attack occured on the 29 September. Who is right? Do you know? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close-range air defence was provided by twelve 20 mm Oerlikon autocannon,
in two twin mounts and eight single ones.
So what is correct? PMG (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check. The light AA armament probably changed over her career as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FTC
So I saw what you wrote at the
Battlecruisers of the World nomination and I can try to be able to close the nomination before the end of October. I can't promise it due to scheduling for my classes on the 31st, but if I'm able to get time, I can try to close it up. Your help with the closing and all that would be very much helpful. So hopefully this can be done on time. GamerPro64 22:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure what to do to absorb the existing topics, but I can do any of the others once I review the closing procedure and have you double-check my work. Just let me know which ones you want me to do. It took me over an hour just to add the nom to the article talk pages so I figure it's bound to be at least twice as much to update the article histories. Like I said, all I need at the moment is the nom to be closed as promoted and the scutwork can wait until whenever it's convenient.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle of getting the topic processed now. Might take at least an hour. Also, "Gorget"? Is that like a Halloween pun? GamerPro64 22:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was just getting worried about things with only a little time left until the end of the day. I know how distracted people can get when they're focused on something and didn't want that to happen to me. Gorget? I know what one is, but what's it in reference to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a reference. You wrote gorget in my talk page. GamerPro64 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I did (bemusedly). No, no weird, but clever, puns. Ain't typos fun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay After two hours of working on everything, I believe the topic is fully in order. If you come across any issues, please let me or Juhachi know. Thank you and happy Halloween. GamerPro64 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.
Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for winning the WikiCup GA prize! Your quality contributions to Wikipedia astound me. – Quadell(talk) 13:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats from me too! It's amazing how much quality work you've put through GA this year. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And always a good read too. A pleasure to read your stuff. Thanks for providing great material so consistently
Thanks to all three of you. Honestly couldn't do it without you guys who do the reviewing. Keep it up and I'll try to keep y'all busy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of
BencherliteTalk 11:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Titan's Cross in Silver!
The
Titan's Cross
in Silver
On behalf of Operation Majestic Titan and its members, it gives me great pleasure to bestow upon you this Titan's Cross in Silver for your dedication and years long effort in working with battlecruiser articles, culminating in the creation, nomination, and passage of the Featured Topic
Battlecruisers of the World. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me be the first in what I hope will be a long line of people to offer my congratulations for being only the second person thus far to have obtained the Titan's Cross in Silver. On a related note, I'm interested in hearing from you if there were any others whose participation in battlecruiser FA, GA, and FT processes warrant an award. Ideally, everyone would get an award, and I do intend to see to it that awards for this are handed out, but I figured to start with you and work my way down such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tom. Most other people are working the battleships, not the BCs. The contributors for this topic were, off the top of my head and in no particular order, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank and Saberwyn. Some of the older articles might have been worked on by other editors before I joined the project, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand von Manstein was a German national. However I don't understand how he can not be considered Polish as well. I defer to your judgment that he didn't consider himself Polish even though I don't know how you know this. I just thought it was interesting that the article mentioned he was Polish considering the Nazi brutality towards the Poles. I will give it a rest. Thanks. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was established. There were about equal numbers of editors on both sides. So I will not revert myself and I will restore any further deletions of the image from its legitimate usage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I established a consensus. You can take it to deletion review if you like. It's not a vote, and it's hard to believe that I have to explain that to a longtime-editor. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That hyphen really doesn't look right to me. The attributes "horizontal" and "return connecting rod" are independent of one another, hyphenating them obstructs the fact. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, now that I look at the link. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you may remember me from the Tosa FAC. I started this earlier intending to write about the Nile cruise ship before I realized that there were several of the same name. I had a go at creating a starter article here but it could use somebody with expertise in ships to improve it. I'm not sure whether separate articles would be preferred, the 1854 ship I'd say probably has enough for a separate article. I was thinking of creating a general Nile cruise ships article for the smaller steamer. I'm also not sure it the wreck website is a RS, but seemed to be good for facts and figures. Can you help improve this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the ships deserves its own article, other than, probably, the Nile steamer, so go ahead and do that and change the SS Nile page into a ship index page as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Be sure add the relevant ship infoboxes to the individual ship pages. I have no real information on or interest in ships that have no military connection, so I'm afraid that I can't be much help to you. User:Mjroots specializes in them and would probably be of more assistance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't I'm afraid, although these a trove archives from Australia which seems to pick up something which can be accessed. I've just split into separate articles. I'll try to add infoboxes tomorrow and find more on them tomorrow. I'm planning on writing a Nile cruise ships article for the Nile steamers tomorrow, I'll put the Nubia Nile boat in that once started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add an infobox to SS Nubia (1854) but it's broken and left-aligned. Can somebody fix it. The data is from the P&O source, wasn't sure what the breadth of the ship it, I put under beam for now. Can you check, not familiar with using that infobox!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the opening {|{{Infobox Ship Begin}} template and the closing |} and also had an extra set of closing brackets after the plainlist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Japanese ironclad Hiei
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Following on from a conversation in which you participated over a year ago, a new discussion regarding the Expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Main Page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Jojhutton's talk page. Message added 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
If the article on a gun is linked in a ship article, it's a bit superfluous to add in a conversion as well. To cover all the bases, I did generally add a conversion later when discussing gun performance data. So you might want to look over those articles to which you've added them and see if they were converted elsewhere in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was just trying to address complaints from younger and international readers that the inch means nothing to them. Give me some time to think about this ! regards, Rod in Sydney. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get fussed about this regardless, but it is a bit redundant to have multiple conversions for the same measurement in the same article. So if you decide to continue to do this, please remove any later conversions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HNLMS Schorpioen
Hi, Are you planning on developing this article to B class (or higher) standard? If so, I have a few extra photos of her interior and exterior which I took when I visited the Dutch Naval Museum in 2011 I could upload to Commons. Her interior wasn't very impressive though. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to, but I haven't found any good sources for her career in English. So C would be the best that I hope for barring another editor who can read the Dutch material that I suspect exists. You'd said that there wasn't much of her interior that was still intact so unless you've got an interesting shot of her turret or engines, I don't know that I'd bother. I'd like more of a forward oblique exterior shot that better illustrates her turret, but I don't know that that's possible without renting a boat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. From memory, she didn't have any engines - the hull contains a museum space (with displays on the history of women in the Dutch navy and the Den Helder naval yard, from memory), an over-priced cafe and a few restored cabins (the captain's cabin, etc) and not much else. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Russian monitor Edinorog
nominate
) 08:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Charodeika-class monitor
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sturmvogel, I see your Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide, but I think it contradicts itself. It says "prime movers" should be under "power", but a steam engine is a prime mover, and that comes under "propulsion". It's a combination of the boiler (the pressure and saturation of the steam) and the steam engine (the type of expansion used, the bore and throw of the cylinder, and other factors) that combine to produce the power generated. I think the guidance works better for modern ships than steam ships. But I'm happy to let your edit stand. Thanks for the interest. Shem (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty logical as I see it since the boilers aren't directly responsible for turning the propeller(s), but provide the power for the engine to do so and thus fall under the power entry. I'd argue that the this works better for steam engines as modern turbo-electric and various combined powerplants are far more confusing, IMO. But maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You have been and continue doing a great job both as a Wiki editor and administrator. Thanks and keep up with it. Have a Happy Hoildays & NewYear. DPdH (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, although I'm not an admin.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Beagle (H30)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope that yours are joyous as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, enough...
Enough of this back and forth. You don't want me doing what I'm doing? Fine. Then point me in the direction of something useful I can do. Magus732 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that... that kind of outburst isn't helpful... Magus732 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's understandable considering that your changes take some time to do. I don't know if you're Wikignoming because you lack the time or resources to expand articles or if it's just something you prefer to do, but there's certainly other stuff that you can be profitably be doing. Ship article titles need to have the ship's name in italics or you could focus on improving their categorization, neither of which I tend to remember to do anything about. Adding convert templates to articles is certainly worthwhile, although I'd suggest you limit your preference for always abbreviating everything. For one thing, I like to show the hyphen form of a compound adjective like 15-inch gun, something that abbreviating eliminates. You could ensure that articles written in AmEnglish use American spelling of units and vice versa; just be sure not to change the type of English unless there are strong national connections like RN ships use BritEng or USN ships use AmEng. Articles on non-English speaking navies' ships have no national connection and can be written in either form; just be sure that it's consistent within the article. And if you'd like to write a ship article, I'd be happy to help as I have a pretty large library; so much so that I don't really consider Jane's Fighting Ships as a top tier resource. Lemme know what you'd like to do and I'm willing to help or provide advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his great efforts in the December 2013
Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 109 points from 16 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
No problem, you just need to be a bit more careful when entering the info and not confuse order date with laid down date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, I cannot believe I made that silly mistake. Sorry about that!
Stuff happens; I've done much the same myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of an RfC
The previous discussion regarding an extension of TFLs on the front page in which you commented, has moved on to an RfC on the Main Page. Your comments and suggestions are once again welcome on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Article reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an incredible 31 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
Hi Sturm,
The ACR hasn't initiated prperly, "undergoing" bit is still red. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It shows blue when I load the talk page and it appears fine on the ACR page itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had some trouble with a similar issue when I created the book for
this GT - for some reason, the template wasn't showing a blue link once the book was up. There may have been a server issue yesterday. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
Thanks again for the GA review. As a question, do you think that this article has legs for A-class, or is it a bit too thin? I've included just about everything I've been able to find on it, so there isn't much scope to extend it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that it's too thin. You cover the background to the attack, the preliminary stuff, the attack itself, and the aftermath, both the tactical side with the German subs and the strategic. I would, though, add which squadrons from which carrier did what, just like you did on your FAC for one of the other attacks on Tirpitz (Tungsten?). I'd also suggest building a navbox covering all the attacks on Tirpitz for easy referencing, split between aerial and sub attacks and consider building them into a good or featured topic. If you need help with any of this, just give a holler and I'll see what I can do or reference for you. BTW, one of my plans for this year is to take all of the RN fleet carriers to GA and a couple of them to FAC to qualify them as a featured topic. So I'll have good info on what squadron is on which carrier with what aircraft when if you need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that feedback: I'll have go at working the article up for A-class over the next week or so. I've been considering developing a
List of attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz article (or similar) to clarify which attacks occurred when: there's a useful table of most of the attacks in the British official history which would provide a basis for this. I've recently ordered David Brown's book on the RN's carriers during World War II (finding out in the process that he passed away while finishing the third volume, which is a considerable loss to naval history), so I should be able to help out with developing those articles if you don't have access to a copy. I also own the final volume of the official history, which is quite useful for carrier operations (though Roskill does seem to have been more comfortable writing about surface actions...). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've got Brown's book, which is quite good; it, Polmar & Genda, and Rohwer have been my basic go-to books for carrier ops so I'm pretty much set, I think. I've only skimmed Roskill, but haven't been all that impressed, probably because he doesn't go into the level of detail that I typically like. I've just received David Hobbs' new book on British carriers which looks to be quite good and a nice supplement to Norman Friedman's essential book on British carriers which is more of a development history. I'll probably write up a review of Hobbs once I've had time to digest it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.
Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.
For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.
Hello Sturmvogel 66, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk·contribs), The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 14:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
USS Mahan (DD-364) article is now a GA. Thank you for helping to bring this about. Pendright (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. I hope that you continue to work on other ship articles as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
GAN Backlog Drive Award
The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For reviewing 9 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive!--Dom497 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the January 2014
Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 79 points from 13 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
Hey Sturm, I finally got around to rewriting the service history section for the article. Let me know if you think it needs more work. I'll do the intro later today or tomorrow and we can think about putting in through the review process once we're happy with it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the lead is done - again, check for anything you'd like to see changed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that some of that text looks familiar! :-) I added some links and added some trivial changes and I think that it's ready for GA. Maybe this will inspire me to finish off the two remaining Conte di Cavour-class articles once I'm done with my British seaplane carriers. Which is getting frustrating because two of them had significant civilian careers that I'm going to have to try and expand upon while lacking good sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only bit I lifted from another article was the couple of lines on Italian naval strategy in WWI :P And yeah, get the two Conte di Cavours done - once they're finished we'll just have the Vittorio Veneto and Littorio to do. Even the list, which is the worst part about these things, is already done. Have fun with your proto-bird farms, I'm planning on revamping the two Graf Zeppelin articles with a couple of Warship International articles I have, which will finish up the German CV topic (and of course I need to finish the dreaded list). Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's up for GA now if you want to keep an eye on where the review page will pop up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Have you seen Breyer's book on Graf Zeppelin? And I know I've seen multiple references for the German doctrine for her in various compare-and-contrast books on carrier development that you may not be familiar with. Let me know if you'd like for me to track them down for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see this until now. I have one of Breyer's books on her (or maybe two - I'll have to check the scanned library), and I'd be interested on the refs on doctrine. I do have access to the Warships International articles that were published in the 2000s on her and the navalized aircraft and so forth.
On another note, I've got Littorio and Impero up for GA, and Vittorio Veneto will follow relatively soon. I also restored Roma to its old GA state, with some improvements, so the Italian topic is getting close to being finished. Of course, they'll all need more work (from Bagnasco & de Toro, particularly) before at least Littorio and Vittorio Veneto go to FAC, but they're way down on that queue. It might be time to move the two remaining Conti de Cavours higher in your queue, if you don't mind. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, is there a template to indicate an infobox is needed? An article I just edited, Otranto Barrage, is missing one, and I wondered if I could leave a template so someone can put one in later, or should I just add the infobox myself? Magus732 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that MilHist has any such template, although I know that Ships and Aviation both do. I don't see why you couldn't add one yourself. Template:Infobox military conflict is probably the closest match for the article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the other coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am very pleased to award you the A-Class medal with swords to recognise your work in developing the Japanese battleship Asahi, Russian battleship Retvizan, and Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū articles to A-class standard. These are impressive articles on Navies which are rather under-represented. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing a last-second run through Google Books (which I probably should have done back in '11), and I've found two sources giving different values for the Poltava's tonnage, differing from both McLaughlin and each other. I presumed one of them might have been the slimmed-down weight after refloating, but I dunno where to cram the second one. Buggie111 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed with any source from that time as they seem to be using the design figures. The one you added is only 10 tons different from her design displacement of 10,960 so I'm inclined to delete it. The Japanese don't appear to have inclined her to see how much she displaced after all the changes so I don't think that any figure is actually available if McLaughlin, Lengerer and Jentschura couldn't dig one up. I'll wait for your response before I actually delete anything. Congrats for finding the Coast Artillery Journal source, though, I rarely bother looking through Google when I've got a reasonable number of modern sources to use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I knew they looked familiar. Yeah, I'll nix'em. Coast Artillery? That the Antiaircraft Journal? Buggie111 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll a few pages from the front, the name is actually Journal of the US Field Artillery or somesuch. I knew that there was no way that there could be an Antiaircraft Journal only 3 years after the Wright Brothers. I've already changed the entry to match.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you'd hold off on nom'ing Peresvet (at least until the 6th of March or so), I could get my Russian sources in. Buggie111 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's already at ACR. :-( But go ahead and collect your info and post your changes either here or on the article's talk page. Be careful though, I already found instances with Balakin where he was flat-out wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the end of the world. And where were these factual inaccuracies, out of curiosity? Buggie111 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the ship didn't participate in any of the fleet's sorties before the Yellow Sea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITESHORT there are two types of short citation, one which gives the publication date, and the other that gives the date of publication. I am indeed "changing the cite style" - to a correct one. What I don't understand is why you'd revert a change that is an obvious improvement in line with the style guide. Given the nature of this change, I'll revert while awaiting your response - but if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to change it back again - although I'd be very interested to hear your reason why. Shem (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Citeshort presents two examples of styles, it does not prescribe either. I see no reason to add year of publication as there's no possibility of confusion, which is the only legitimate reason, to my mind, to do so. You may well be accustomed to academic cite formats, but I dislike them and see no need to follow them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Treasury Note (1890–91)
.
Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
Natalia Kills discography
.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
Pretty impressive - I did my part and clicked on it yesterday ;) By the way, I don't think you noticed I added a {{
cn}} tag to your last article - it's still waiting for B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I never ordinarily ever check how many hits my DYKs get so I have no idea if that's above average. Although from Matty's comment it sounds good. You're right, I completely missed that; I was baking cookies! Thanks for reminding me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good - back when I was still doing DYKs I know there was a page that tracked articles that got more than 5,000 hits (or maybe 10,000, I don't remember exactly). Nevertheless, what kind of cookies, and where are mine? Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The oatmeal-raisin cookie dough is cooling in the fridge even as I write this. Come on over, and I'll let you sample whatever's in the cookie jar. And I'll even let your daughter lick the beaters from the mixer!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be right over - how did you know she loves her oatmeal? Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty near universal at that age.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 15,000 is very good; what
WP:DYKSTATS, linked in the DYK template above. If you look at my DYKs, 15,000 is my 5 best out of 80 or so. Have fun with the cookies! Best, Matty.007 21:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, it beats all of my other DYKs in the last 6 months by a considerable margin. I hope this batch turns out good; the last one was OK, but not great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Cressy (1899)
nominate
) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This one's got just under 10,000 views. Thanks, Matty.007 18:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I literally finished going through it again a minute ago and gave it my support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signatures
Thank you. I do appreciate any advice. Although I do sometimes forget to add the signature, I have gotten better lately. The most recent instance, however, was not because I forgot to sign (I assume that is the one you refer to...
Kongo-class battleship
?). I DID sign, and then clicked "preview". Then I saved my post. I came back a minute later to edit my post, and it had an autosign, even though I DID type the four tildes. That has happened before. Not sure why.
And while I'm here and on the subject, a question I've wanted to put forth to a knowledgeable Wikipedian for some time: why, if you have a "bot" that will automatically add your signature anyway, is it necessary to manually add a signature? Is it just a matter of form? I'm genuinely curious about this.
Anyway, I do try to remember to sign my posts. 90% of the time I succeed, and I'm getting more used to it. But I don't ever not sign intentionally..45Colt 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)
Edit: Okay...I see. Although I signed that comment, it registers as not being signed. So I have to sign it AFTER I click "preview comment"? .45Colt 21:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)
Yes. It's really a matter of form. And a lot of people have very elaborate signatures that the bot won't duplicate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA congratulations again...
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of
Thanks. I need to sit down and identify my future TFAs for the upcoming centenary of WWI. Between me and Parsecboy, we've got potential for quite a few although they'll likely be scheduled more closely together than ideal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of a separate section, 'Loss', was simply following what appeared to be established Wikipedia practice, viz. HMS Barham (04), HMS Ark Royal (91). The Simon's Bay photograph is indeed of minor importance, its inclusion simply a means of preserving it, and the occasion, for posterity. Ptelea (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a "loss" subsection is deserved when there's much more detail to be presented. I used one in HMS Aboukir because there was a lot more to be covered with the actions of all three ships and the submarine that sank them all needing to be discussed. Hermes doesn't have nearly enough to justify a separate section to my mind. However, if more details on the rescue efforts, etc., ever surfaced, then it would be worthwhile, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the article Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duel
As the current second and third places in this round of the WikiCup, and not separated by many points, I hereby challenge thee to a duel for supremacy! Winner to be decided at the end of this round. Name thy wager. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subscription required template
Thanks for all your great contributions! When you are using the Subscription required template, it should be placed inside the ref tag, just before the </ref> rather outside the ref tag, per the template documentation. --HarryHenryGebel (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring 3,160 points during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this barnstar. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The Golden Wiki
By order of the
Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring the most points during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this Golden Wiki. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
Sturmvogel 66, this needs your attention. If you're still waiting for the info from three weeks ago (the last time I posted here), then it's probably time to close it as unsuccessful. If that was already taken care of, then it may be ready to close as successful, or need a bit more work. One way or the other, some posting to the review page would be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, I realise now that I hadn't edited the GAN page to say that with Nick's and the AWM's help we confirmed the disbandment date of the unit. Anyway, Wizardman's closed it as successful now. Were you still able to review Garnet Malley? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me about Malley; I'd totally forgotten that I'd signed on to review it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think nothing of it, I only just remembered yesterday (well just after midnight this morning to be precise) that I'd claimed a GAN to review a couple of weeks back... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sevastopol
Hey Sturm, I thought you might be interested in this.
Ah, found a better report in a book. S.O. is senior officer apparently. Matty.007 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind giving the article a once over before I mainspace it please? Thanks, Matty.007 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few things stand out. You've misspelled the ship's name more than once and you might be paraphrasing some of the naval–history.net language a little too closely: "foreign action", etc. It needs a thorough copy-edit; you might ask for help from the Guild of Copyeditors. And I'm not thrilled with how you've presented the material in the infobox. Warships don't use gross tons, only merchant ships, and you never tell the reader what DCT and DCRs are. I rarely venture down to ships the size of Algerine because there are so many bigger ones to deal with, but you might take a look at some of my British destroyer articles like HMS Beagle (H30) to see how I like to structure the infobox for WW2-era ships. I hope that not I'm coming across as an ass about any of this, but I do hold all ship articles to a very high standard and this one needs a fair amount of work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot, AFAIK RN ship badges are crown copyright and OK to use, but I'm no expert on copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Typos fixed I think. I'm afraid I don't know much about measuring ships. What are DCT and DCR? What should I measure weight in? Are there any other paraphrasing issues? How can I change gross tonnage to long ton? I will speak with someone about the image. Sorry for all the questions. Thank you for all the help, if there are issues, I would rather know about them rather than be happy in ignorance. Are there any ships more your size that still need creating? Best, Matty.007 18:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the infobox with one that's up to my standards and tweaked your leading sentence because she was the name ship of the class. Depending on what your goals are for this article there are a couple of other things that you can do before you move it to mainspace. The biggest of which is to rewrite the history into something that flows better and reads more easily. Your sources are rather terse and clipped and the current language reflects that. Try to recast it in something that sounds more natural to read; read through existing GA and above ship articles to get a feel for what works well. And I mean a close reading, perhaps even aloud, to really learn what reads naturally. If you want to go for GA, you'll need to add a description section that covers everything in the infobox and replace your web sources with printed ones as much as possible. And, of course, cite at least once a paragraph. Problem with "little boys" like minesweepers is that they're not well documented, even in printed books, and it can be hard find enough information to meet the "reasonably complete" GA criteria. "Swept mines off the East Coast all war" really isn't likely to pass muster, even if that's all the ship ever did. Even ships the next size up, like destroyers, can be hard unless you find a book or two covering the class or, if you're extremely lucky, an actual history of a particular ship.
OTOH, there's nothing wrong with creating stub/start-class articles with a good skeleton as a basis for further expansion by yourself or someone else. I've done that myself for most of the German WWII destroyers, figuring that I'll get to them at some point if somebody else doesn't expand them first. And building the skeleton myself ensures that at least that much will be done to my rather persnickety standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for re-writing the infobox. Is there any chance of getting such a small article to GA? I'll be having a look at some of your other articles to get a feel for what you mean. Thanks again for all the help, Matty.007 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because she was sunk so early in her career, this article can certainly make GA, although you may have to spend some money on books or find some one who can copy stuff for you. That may not be true for other ships in the class. And one last point, don't be afraid to use other articles as models for your own; that's how I got started. Just be sure that they're GA or better! One of the very nice things about ships is that they're often enough alike that you can copy stuff like the infobox and description sections from one article to the other, only making minor adjustments as necessary, which saves a lot of time and effort.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help. Was the info about her weight in the book ref you added? Thanks, Matty.007 11:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added a description section. Thanks, Matty.007 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything in the infobox can be sourced to Lenton.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you, I have ordered the book from a library. Are the description and lead prose OK and accurate? Thanks, Matty.007 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had the sections out of order and I tweaked the text regarding the Oerlikons a little. Otherwise looks OK.
Thank you very much. I don't understand all the stuff on guns. When I have de-jerkified the prose a little, could I take it to GAN? Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be OK, but I'd try and replace as many of the references to Naval-history.com with Rohwer as possible. The former isn't what I would consider a reliable source, although others may have their own opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lt Cdr Geoffrey Mason is considered quite knowledgeable, and I hope it is a RS, but I'm not sure. I have ordered a second edition of the book to my library, so will have it in hopefully not too long. Thanks, Matty.007 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Lenton book now for a few weeks, but I can't see where the deep load weight is? Thanks, Matty.007 11:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also couldn't find where the make of cannon, and about the depth charges were mentioned? Thanks, Matty.007 11:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What edition are you using? All of my information comes from p. 261 in my edition, which is a monstrously heavy 800-page book. The naval term for ship weight is displacement in case you didn't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the library edition is second edition, which explains a bit. Can I add 261 for the third edition ref to the description section in the article? Thanks, Matty.007 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you very much for all your detailed help working out how to improve Algerine, I appreciate it very much. All the best, Matty.007 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, paragraphs two and three are largely copyvios of [3], should it be CSDed or AFDed on the assumption the entire thing is? Thanks, Matty.007 11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the book is a reprint of Wiki articles so I don't think that the editor is guilt of plagarism from that source. That said, he may have plagarized from other sources. I'd suggest running the questionable text through a plagarism/copyvio detector and see if anything matches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I should have read more. Copyvio isn't working at the minute (and not brilliant when it does), googling parts of the text got me nothing, so I guess it will just have to be left for now. Thanks, Matty.007 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are a couple of general-purpose plagarism detectors for professors and teachers to run their student's work through that you could probably use if you're so inclined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ran it through a few, nothing doing except WP article, so maybe a book? Please can you explain what "Additional Commanders of the Military Division of the said Most Excellent Order" are, in despatches? (For User:Matty.007/sandbox/Alex Stuart-Menteth if you're interested). Thanks, Matty.007 14:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a book, but I wouldn't worry about it for now since nothing's online. Most, if not all, of the British chivalrous orders are split into civil and military "divisions", so the King was adding new members at the specified grade C.B., G.C.V.O., etc., for each order. Does that help?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Does he get any extra initials? Thanks, Matty.007 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, check to see if the article on mentioned in dispatches says anything about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's wrong, it's just been renamed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Do you reckon it could be a GA, as again there is a notable lack of info on him? Thanks, Matty.007 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not without a lot more information. Right now, I'm not even sure that he meets the general notablility guidelines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree about the notability, several articles, two in leading daily newspapers seem to make him notable. I looked it up, DSO is level 2A, DSC is 3A, and (excuse my ignorance), a bar is a further commendation for courage and bravery, and he got bar on both (seemingly fulfilling Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times at
the essay linked from the GNG for military people. Just to note, I am not finished with it yet, I have a fair bit more to do. Thanks, Matty.007 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Andrea Doria-class battleship
nominate
) 08:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar
Would you by any chance have time and inclination to look over this article? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if my internet connection stabilizes; it's been intermittent all week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be reviewing it today. I also have access to ProQuest, that has some contemporary news article, mostly dealing with her sinking, but I see one or two discussing her service with Japan. Please send me an email so I may send you these.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My email is in the sidebar, or do you want me to contact you first to allow for the attachments? Thanks for researching these for me; I generally only bother with contemporary sources if I can't find anything else of more modern vintage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gun caliber
I've looked over a number of warship articles, and gun descriptions of the form 8"/55 caliber (sometimes leaving out the slash) appear to be in very common use. Do you really want to go on a one-man crusade to change all the gun descriptions to the clumsier form, 55-caliber 8" gun? It's no clearer for beginners, and it's irritating to nonbeginners familiar with the other form. --Yaush (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll reformat every designation in articles that I choose to work on in that manner because a link explaining caliber is far clearer than the /XX. That format tell the reader nothing about what /XX means; at least my format, which isn't very elegant, I admit, tells the reader that it's XX caliber with a link. /XX is common only because that's the way the US Navy designates its guns, i.e. 5"/54 Mk whatever and editors just parrot that in the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think you should get some consensus on that first? One-man crusades don't really seem to be the way Wikipedia rolls. --Yaush (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Germans also use the /XX format, though they at least helpfully add an "L" in front of it. The diameter of the bore is more important to readers than the length of the barrel, and putting the caliber first gives it more prominence. Might it be better to reverse the order and refer to it as an 8-inch 55-caliber gun? That way, you can keep the link to caliber while keeping those who prefer the standard USN format somewhat happy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about that already, but it reads clumsily when you add the designation to the name as well, IMO. I do think that GraemeLeggett's addition of "long" is a useful clarification that it emphasizes length rather bore diameter as in the very familiar .45-caliber pistol, but it makes things more awkward if you put the caliber after the size and designation. Forex 100 mm Type 40 gun with a length of 65 calibers vs 65-caliber long 100 mm Type 40 gun. Might I point out that this article passed multiple reviews to become a featured article and you two are the first ever to object to the treatment of caliber, so the original text conveyed the information perfectly adequately for ordinary readers unfamiliar with the two definitions of caliber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble in finding a standard format is that navies use different formats for their designations - some include the caliber (as in the American case), some don't (as in the RN), and some did at one point but then stopped (such as the Germans after the 1920s). In the American case, this shouldn't really be an issue, since the formal designation includes the word "caliber" (as in the
8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun). One alternative (and the one I usually use in my articles) is to use the basic designation (which in my case normally includes the length in calibers) and add a footnote that explains the designation (I'm sure you've seen my standard footnote - granted, that's more necessary since it involves German abbreviations, but it might be a good solution). Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That could work. Despite what anyone may think this is really about the best way to convey the information to readers unfamiliar with nautical/artillery terminology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that - the route I chose was to provide the official designation in the prose and then explain in a footnote, mostly because it would have been far too cumbersome to write "38-centimeter Schnelladekanone (Quick-loading gun) Construktionjahre (Design Year) /34 Länge (length) /52 guns" ;) I think your note looks good. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Stalking) I can vouch for Sturm's effectiveness on getting over the concept, so the reader can understand the shorthand, and get the concept of calibres. Having learned the earlier system of notation, mostly from hanging around the Victorian and Edwardian pre-dreadnaughts,(I love Victorian and Edwardian heavy artillery), this new method has the edge in getting to the idea of calibres fast.
ironclad Fusō sank after colliding with two ships during a storm when her anchor chain broke on 29 October 1897? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese ironclad Fusō. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Sturmvogel 66, I currently have the two books you recommended, but the Rohwer one doesn't have much info to expand the article with. Do you think it will pass GA as it is? Thanks, Matty.007 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's marginal as you have little information on her short time on the East Coast. It also needs a copy edit, IMO, as the career section is very choppy. Lenton says that the ship was built with single 20 Oerlikons and that the ships of her class later received twin mounts. Given that he doesn't define "later" you can't say that she definitely received them as she was the first ship of her class and was likely sunk before "later" happened. IIRC, I don't see much mention of twin Oerlikons until '43-44 from my research. But you can fix these issues and throw it out there for review and see how your reviewer reacts. Just don't be too disappointed if it doesn't pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a little copy edit, and fixed that fact. I think it's fairly comprehensive, so will likely nominate it for GA soon (I have no problem with GAs failing, having had one failed, and 3 FLNs withdrawn). Thanks, Matty.007 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in reviewing it if I did nominate it, or not? Thanks, Matty.007 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I wrote part of it, I think that that would be a bit of a CoI. Best, I think, to let somebody else take a gander at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the quick reply. Best, Matty.007 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his tremendous efforts in the March 2014
Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 166 points from 28 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 28 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.
192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reference Errors on 5 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Thank you; I'd been wondering why only the text volumes had been scanned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm affraid no definite answer here, it's not about a scan, only a limited display. Indicative is restricted to the similarity in the graphics, the identical legend, the assesment in the Neptunia 2011 magazine. --Askedonty (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for SS Kanguroo
nominate
) 11:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the GA review
Thanks once again for taking the time to do the GA review for Battery White. I didn't realize just how long it'd taken until I saw your two messages juxtaposed—one from April 4, stating that you were going to do the review, and then one from May 13 letting me know that it'd passed. I apologize for taking so long to produce the map, and hope that it didn't cause you any inconvenience. Ammodramus (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was no problem. I'm glad you were able to figure out how to do the map. I'd have hated to fail it if you hadn't been able to produce one. I hope that you do some more articles in that same vein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
For reviewing 9 GAN's (for a total of 25 points) during the March 2014 Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is article Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18. There is a source - ut I have checked and there is nothing about this specific class. I googled a little and here there is info that nobody knows anything, and here is a info that this is probably some class from World of warships and even they don`t know almost anything except class name. I am not sure if en.wiki should have entry about this class, and definetly I dont know how to handle request for deletion. Can you please, look at this article~and take care of it? PMG (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on it either. I've nominated it for deletion - the discussion is here. Thanks for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this for me; I've been focusing on finishing off the Ise-class BB article and haven't been able to get around to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not RV GF changes
I edited, and will edit again, the Vanguard article specifically because I could not understand how that lead could possibly pass FA with that confusing and poorly written lead. It can certainly be improved, and I want to improve it. The fact that it passed FA means little, all articles can be improved, and "don't change it because it's FA" is precisely the sort of thing that is destroying the wiki.
So unless you have a very specific point about the inclusion, which clearly does improve the lead, I will consider further reverts to be edit warring.
Oh, and to pre-flight: separating the first two sentences out emphasizes the historical place for this ship. Currently that is buried in other content. Further, as the lead does not currently state the date construction started, the fact that is was not completed during the war is somewhat meaningless - if it started in 1944 this would be an odd statement. By clearly stating when construction started, that it stopped and restarted and for what reason, context is added. There was also somewhat curious and confusing use of phrases and separation of sentences. So if you feel none of these changes are improvements, by all means, explain away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have an opinion and I don't agree that your changes add any value. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the article and it does that just fine, IMO. You're adding extraneous details and what you perceive as clearly added value isn't necessarily so. The article was reviewed at FAC for the quality of its text by at least three other people, so it's not just my opinion. While your edits are clearly made in good faith, there's no reason why I can't revert them because they do nothing to improve the article. Your opinion regarding my actions here is merely your opinion and means nothing to me, exactly as mine means nothing to you.
The article can certainly be improved if you think that it skimps on some substantial point, etc., but you should post your proposed changes here for further discussion. As a first response to issues other than your phrasing, I'll point out that linking the guns available isn't particularly important for the lede, only their existence is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another stab at a compromise here:
...Work on the ship's design commenced before the war because the Royal Navy anticipated being outnumbered by the combined German and Japanese battleships in the early 1940s. The British had enough 15-inch guns and turrets in storage to allow one battleship of a modified Lion-class battleship design to be completed faster than the ships of that class that had already been laid down. Work on Vanguard was started and stopped several times during the war and even after construction had begun, her design was revised several times to reflect war experience. These stoppages and changes prevented her from being completed during the war."
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject I am very pleased to present you with your second WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. This award is made in recognition of your continued sterling performance as a major contributor to our WikiProject. This has included two years as a Coordinator (September 2010 to September 2012), three A-Class Medals, five A-Class Medals with Oak Leaves, and five A-Class Medals with Swords. You topped the recent February-March backlog drive, are a regular winner of the monthly contest, are a consistent and keen reviewer, and provide wise advice on various aspects of the WikiProject to all and sundry. You don't engage in groupthink and you ask the hard questions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. This is a message for CasLiber, HamiltonStone, SturmVogel and Crisco. Thanks for your help and feeback re: the Singora article. It achieved FA status on Saturday.
I got a message today saying the article will now appear on Wikipedia's home page on June 4. This surprised me. I read somewhere that it usually takes several months for featured articles to make it to the home page.
I've cleaned things up a bit. CasLiber and Crisco noted that the section about Persians in 17th century Siam looked out of place. I've deleted this paragraph.
I've also re-jigged the lead and added:
1. Alternative names / spellings to the Early History section.
2. An explanatory note re: the foundation of the city in 1605.
3. An explanatory note re: Sultan Sulaiman's declaration of independence in 1642.
4. A second paragraph to the The forts at Khao Daeng section.
If you have time to briefly glance through it again, please do. I still feel the article can be improved prior to June 4.
Thanks again for your help. I've enjoyed doing this. I finished Oxford University almost exactly 30 years ago, so this has been an opportunity to cast aside some of the rust and dust that's built up over the years. Perhaps I'm not as good as I was, but I think I'm still just about okay!
I'll login from time to time. If you'd like a review, do please feel free to let me know.
Been inactive for a while now looking to get back into the swing of things by touching up the King George V battleship main article.
Seeing as you have done nearly all the Italian battleship articles I was wondering if you could clarify which Italian battleships KGV and Howe escorted to Alexandria on 9-11 September 1943. Thurgate (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you back. As best I can figure, they were Italia and Vittorio Veneto. Ask Parsecboy though; he's got the book on the Littorio class ship and can give you more info, although I don't think that they left for Alex until 14 Sep. KGV escorted one of the older BBs, I think, to Malta after 9 Sep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah righto, i'll give him a shout then. This is what I've changed with the lede so far and I was just wondering (ignoring grammar mistakes etc) if its to long and if so what should I cut out. Thurgate (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest thing, I think, is that it's too detailed, as are the accounts of the individual ships. Why do you have actual times? Only very rarely do I mention exact dates in the lede, usually just the year and maybe the month. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the main body. One technique that I've used is that the lede of the individual ship article becomes the career summary of the class article and and class article lede is a summary of those ledes, so a three-tier system. Take a look at Renown-class battlecruiser and see how much detail is there compared to the main body, and then compare that to the individual ship article ledes. And do the same for Conte di Cavour-class battleship and Andrea Doria-class battleship to get a feel for how we're doing things in our latest articles. These last two are FA and currently at FAC, respectively, whereas the Renown-class article is a couple of years old and I probably need to clean it a bit. It's a hard thing to balance the appropriate level of detail between class and individual ship articles and I have a tendency to put too much technical detail into the ship articles. IMO, the class article really needs to focus on the design history and the specifications, to include gun performance data, where the ship article can skim this sort of stuff and focus on the service history. Forex, propeller diameter is best suited for the class article; the ship article should just hit the highlights of the specifications, just enough to provide cites for everything in the infobox.
You've got too much detail in the main body as well; you shouldn't be giving times. Just give a summary of each battle, forex, that KGV and Rodney were able to close to near point-blank range vs. Bismarck and pummeled her to death, with no more than a sentence mentioning the debate over the exact cause of her sinking, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah righto. Right I've trimmed the lede and redone the service history, do you think its still too detailed? Thurgate (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw. Given our disagreements over the proper approach to the article, I'll let Peacemaker67 make up his own mind about things although I may offer comments from time to time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ise-class battleship
I saw this, and thought I bet Sturmvogel's worked on that. Low and behold you have! I've credited you in the DYK nom. Anyone else you'd advise crediting? (Just noticed that I'm beating you in the Cup! I expect you'll double my eventual score though, you produce loads of top quality ship GAs.) Thanks, Matty.007 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of a good DYK hook, so I'm happy to let you do the heavy lifting. No, it's just my work this time. I expect that I'll get points for a couple more FAs this round so I may well beat your score. But getting GA reviewers has been a bit harder this round so I don't know how many more will get done in time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with the FAs. What was that you were saying about GA reviews (section below)! Any problems with me nominating that if/probably when it passes? Thanks, Matty.007 20:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, go ahead. As for others, I think I've only got one other GAN in the pipeline.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it makes you feel any better I've only got two GAs, and one self nom at DYK in the pipe, and am relying solely on whatever I can at the minute. Anyhow, good luck again with the FAs. Thanks, Matty.007 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope all is well. If you have a moment, could you take the second glance at Liberty Head double eagle you were kind enough to say you would do?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it later tonite. Thanks for your prompt response on Andrea Doria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pevensey Castle map
Hi Sturmvogel 66, I've managed to scan and upload the Pevensey Castle map I mentioned earlier, albeit in four segments that are going to need cleaning up and stitching together. See my recent contributions for the raw scans. I'm going to see if I can get some help with processing them. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going through the articles you have worked on and I was greatly impressed. You're a terrific editor WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The round saw this year's first featured portal, with
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ARA El Plata (monitor)
Hi, thanks for contacting me about this matter; I've provided a response in my talk page, and also I've added a link with additional info about the ship. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Jodosma
You seriously need another archive. Jodosma(talk) 19:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Battalion
I noticed your revert of my edit of
118th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht) in which you dispute my spelling of Battalion. I have an English/German dictionary which gives "Bataillon" as a correct spelling. What do you think we should do?Jodosma(talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Your dictionary is correct, the Germans spell it with one "t"; which is why I'm curious why you changed it to the English spelling that uses two "t"s.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was caught in an excess of zeal; there was an awful lot of articles with the same error. However, I'm still not sure what we should do about
118th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht); whichever way you look at it, batallion cannot be correct, it must be either battalion or Bataillon. I suppose that since this article is quoting names then Bataillion (capitalised, as in the Langenscheidt) should be the way to go. I look forward to your input. Jodosma(talk) 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
As per German usage, batallion should be capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with that, I just noticed I spelled it wrong myself above, there should only be one "i", but should it come before the two l's or after; in the Langenscheidt it's after (this seems to be a very troublesome word). Jodosma(talk) 07:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. After looking it up in my German-English military dictionary and checking a couple of German-language unit histories the proper spelling shows the "i" before the two "l"s, Bataillon. I'm pretty sure that I've been screwing that up for years so I'll probably need to check those few articles where I've given German-language unit titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! There must be a lot of other articles with the same error. Jodosma(talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vice-Admiral George Frederick Basset Edward-Collins
Hi Sturmvogel, I wonder if you can find anything on this bloke? I've got this, a mention in a book, and several mentions in the London Gazette. No Wikipedia page, no obits... He was knighted and a vice-admiral apparently, can you find anything? Thanks, Matty.007 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Öland FAC
Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!
Featured Article reviews for the period April–June 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook 18 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KronshtadtBattlecruiser.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicup semifinalists interview request
As you may know, I write for the
Signpost
, basically Wikipedia's newsletter. I'd like to do a feature on the semifinalists, would you be willing to provide, say, 250 to 500 words saying: (1.) Why did you join the Wikicup? (2.) What you you hope to get out of it? and (3.) Which of your contributions to the Wikicup are your favourites?
Not quite sure how I'll order them - I'll probably make the ed17 decide, as, you know, Conflict of Interest: I am a semifinalist. I'd imagine point order or alphabetical or the like.
Hi,Sir.I'm translating your article LT vz. 34 to Chinese.But there is a word which I can't understand very well:
The LT vz. 34 was assembled from a framework of steel "angle iron" beams, to which armor plates were riveted. A 3 mm (0.12 in) firewall separated the engine compartment from the crew. A door allowed access to the engine from the crew compartment. It also had ventilation openings that could be closed
So now,can you tell me What does the "It" mean? the firewall? the door?or others?
thanks. I can't speak English very well.I hope that you can understand what I mean...--
Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 05:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The firewall had ventilation openings. I can see why you got confused; I'll have to reword that to make it clearer.
Sorry for this being late as I just came across this today. So I just found out that
Petropavlovsk class battleships is now a Featured Topic thanks in part to Russian battleship Poltava (1894) becoming a Featured Article in May. Congrats on the achievement. GamerPro64 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I'd forgotten that they were a good topic to begin with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in an interview
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview in the upcoming August issue of The Bugle with editors who work on articles concerning World War I. We're conducting this interview to mark the centenary of the war, and it forms part of a semi-regular series of interviews on thematic topics. If you're able to participate, I'd be grateful if you could post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2014/Interview by next Sunday 17 July. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant 10 August, not 17 July. I shouldn't be typing anything with a heavy cold! Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to handle that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting perfectly good corrections of an article. The fact that an article is FA does not necessarily mean that it is flawless, nor does it mean that it's "frozen" at its current status. Errors can be missed – and found and corrected anytime.
The change I did is supported by wikipedia guidelines, specifically
WP:Copyedit
, section "Common mistakes to fix", subsection "Punctuation" (which I pointed out to you in my previous edit summary).
See for instance the first example:
He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence.
Did you actually read this, and still decided to re-introduce the error?
I'm going to fix this again now. I hope you don't revert it again after this. If you do, I will have no choice but to report you for edit-warring, which might lead to a block.
Let me also add that the comma does not turn "in 1933" into a subordinate clause. If the name of the state (California) was not mentioned, there would be no comma, like this:
"When an earthquake struck Long Beach in 1933, Arizona's crew provided ... "
However, the mentioning of California needs to be "delimited" by the second comma – which the guideline above explains.
I hope to have addressed your last comment. Can you please check again? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
South Dakota-class battleships
Hi Sturmvogel, was wondering if you would mind taking a look at Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1920)#Missing references. We were hoping you still had a copy of the "CV-2 Lex and CV-3 Sara" from 1977 Warship International, and could say whether that's the appropriate reference for the South Dakota article. Thanks! — Huntster (t@c) 04:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replied over there. Thanks for reminding me about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal de Rochefort
Please note that when forking content from one article to another our license requires that you provide attribution unless you are the sole author. This is done through linking to the original article in edit summary with an explanation that content is copied. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details.--Jac16888Talk 22:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GAN and possible ACR
Hi mate, were you still going to GA review No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF? Also are you still keen to jointly take Nairana to ACR once I get any further info from Denny's? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I'll try to review it tonight or tomorrow. Yeah, I don't see any reason why we can't go to ACR with Nairana.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of
BencherliteTalk 13:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Ship images
Hey dude, I've found a few WWI ship images on the Internet Archive (chapter 12). Thought you might be interested. cc @
[majestic titan] 07:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Ed, I've pulled a few of them off. Good find! Parsecboy (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for me as well. Which ones did you upload, Parsec?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThesethreeGermans and this French one. The British ships weren't all that impressive, quality-wise, and there's a photo of Bouvet but that article already has a number of photos, so I didn't bother bringing that one over. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great. Maybe I'll upload the smaller British ships if they don't already have decent images at commons and the two sub photos.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Rol-Tanguy
Hello
Because of my level of English I am not sure - but is this edit correct? PMG (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty dubious to me - I've reverted it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Renan
Hey, I'm pretty well tapped out on what I can mine from Google Books - anything you can add to the service history section would be appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dedeagatch, Bulgaria? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
[majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Stub contest
A quick note to say that as of this evening you're in the top ten, with 150 points - and there's three days still to go, so if you've any more to add please get them in soon :-). Thanks for the contributions! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2014 – September 2015
Hi Sturm, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. Thanks for standing and all the best for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer
historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa
.
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Article reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a very impressive 18 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high-quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Stub Contest award
The Stub Barnstar
To Sturmvogel 66, thanks for getting involved in the Stub Contest and improving a bunch of stubs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Featured Article on 23 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hyphen vs en-dash
Thanks for the note; I've requested clarification at my talk page. Doremo (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
ygm
}} template.
[majestic titan] 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
I largely agree with what you said on the WikiCup scoring page. In the final round everyone is hoping that the GA and FA reviews of their articles will get done in a timely fashion. However, I am not sure that DYKs are superior in that respect as currently there is a backlog of about 300 articles waiting for review. That I scored so many DYK points in the final round was because I flooded the DYK page with my nominations, doing two expanded, ancient stub articles a day during most of September, until late in the month it became apparent that FPs would win the Cup this year. Where we differ is that I looked at the scoring system and said to myself "how can I best exploit the bonus system?" whereas you chose to work on the kind of articles that interested you without much regard to the bonuses available. This resulted in my getting 1700 in bonuses in the final round while you received 84. Take away the bonus points and our scores are not that dissimilar.
Going forward, I don't much care how the article points and bonus points are allotted but I can see that articles and FPs are so unlike each other in the review process and the amount of work required that it is very difficult to decide on their relative scoring. In the end I think the judges will have to decide in the interest of the competition going forward. Not everyone will be happy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda figured that you'd given up submitting DYKs as your totals did advance much last month over the prior month. I wasn't aware of any backup in DYK because I only review there when I submit and it's been a month or more since my last submission. I'm kinda conflicted about bonus points as I would generally expect most of your articles to get more page views than one of my ship articles and thus be "more important" in at least one metric. And its kinda irritating that other people don't write ship articles on other wikis because ships are just as important as individual species of fungi or orchids, IMMO. But I'd also like to be competitive while writing about the things that I like, and have the specialized library to consult for the necessary research. And it's impossible to decide if more in-depth articles are better than more bare-bones articles (although the competitive side of me is jumping up and down and screaming, "yes, of course!").
You're probably right, though, about how competitive we'd all be without bonus points at all, so much so that I think that I would actually have won last year if they were excluded. But I'm not inclined to give up bonuses because I do think that they serve a useful purpose. So I think that we need to rejigger things to make it more competitive for all types of material. I'm open to suggestions, although I do think that we need to remember that we shouldn't over burden the review processes themselves, which might require bumping up points for GA reviews and, possibly introducing points for FAC/peer review comments of a minimum length, and maybe even adding points for DYK reviews, not related to QPQ. This latter point just occurred to me and might be worth exploring more on the Scoring page. Whatever we decide I agree that there will be tears involved somewhere, but I tend to think that's the case more often then not in these sorts of things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1940 Field Marshal Ceremony
I would appreciate if you would fail the article. On second thought, the article still needs plenty of work and is not ready for GA-status.
Sturm, I am trying to understand your removal of the portal in the article. I don't understand why it would be redundant and if you could explain that then perhaps I will have learned something in the process. It is my intention to take Revenue Cutter Service articles and improve them to at least B class. If the citations were in place I feel that this article would pass B Class now unlike many of the USRC articles which are hasty cut and pastes from DANFS or the Coast Guard Historian's records. Help me to understand your revert and I would be grateful. I have put the same portal on several USRC and USCGC articles, but if there is a valid reason for not having it there then please explain that for me. I can only assume that the revert was done in good faith, but fail to understand the reasoning. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, congrats on your WikiCup Final 8 result... Cuprum17 (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The portal is already at the bottom of the page, just above the monitor navbox as part of the external links, so I saw no need for a redundant one further up. Portals are generally down at the bottom of an article, just above any navboxes. I'm not sure if that's in
WP:MILMOS, but it does seem to be an informal standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I applaud your intention to take the USRC articles to B class and am glad that you understand the need to cite them fully. It's been years since I did any work on the article and haven't looked at the DANFS entry so I'm not sure if it's been reworked from that. Just be sure to put in quotes, with a proper cite, for any text that's used from DANFS. You should check to see if the Official Records of the Navy in the Rebellion has a report from Naugatuck's CO about his ship's participation in the Battle of Trent's Reach to expand that section. It would also be great if you could find some more information on the ship's activities later in the war and also after the war. Adding that info might well bring it up to GA standard, which would be awesome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while I am reasonably comfortable with B class work, GA work is not in my comfort zone just yet. I have done just one GA article, and while Zawed helped me through it, I still had some problems finding information for cites that he felt were needed to bring it up to GA work. It is even worse with USRC cites because many things just were not written down by historians back in the day. The Coast Guard has only had a fully funded Historian's Office program for the last thirty or so years. Case in point is the Naugatuck article...no one knows what happened to it after the Civil War! There are editors out there, myself included who could use some of that mentoring that is promised but not delivered by the MILHIST Project. I can write good solid B class material on ship subjects provided I have the references to work from, however, the jump to GA class seems distant. Thanks for the information on the navbox in the article, it isn't my intention to duplicate anything and I only want to improve articles on the cutters that served the USRCS and the early USCG since no one else has really devoted much time to them and I am a retired Coast Guardsman. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way that I started to do GA-class work is to look at existing GAs on the same topic and copy their format and structure to get an idea of what was required. So I'd suggest that that you look through a bunch of existing GAs on ships of the same period as your interests and see how they're put together. So read them and then look at the Wikimarkup so you can analyze the code. And don't be afraid to literally copy things for use in your own articles. While my time is rather limited right now, feel free to ask any questions that you might have and I'll do my best to answer. Just maybe not in a very timely manner so don't get frustrated if I don't respond for a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion; I have a couple of ideas on articles for starters. I'll give it a go, but like you my time is somewhat limited, so this may take a while. If I run into a snag, I may ask some questions of you. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff you say in your edit summary that "Bibliography is not Further reading", but what else is it? The books don't appear to have been used in the construction of the article, and certainly aren't cited anyway. Caiaphodus (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Did you notice the boatload of cites in the table listing all the ships in the class?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
Whatever beliefs you have, merry New Year! We all mark that with new calendars, whether we like it or not! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Military History WikiProject, for being a prolific writer and reviewing nearly five hundred good article nominations, I award you this Golden Wiki. Congratulations! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas! Pendright (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Hope you had a good Christmas as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Swords to recognise your fine work in developing the Russian battleship Pobeda, HMS Formidable (67), and HMS Illustrious (87) articles to A-class status. A great way to celebrate the end of 2014 and your military historian of the year award! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sturmvogel 66, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturm, I'm getting around to writing the individual ship articles for the
Etna class, and saw that you used the Warship 2002-3 article when you did the class article. Is there any more info on the ships' careers that you didn't include in the article? If there is anything, would you mind adding it to the articles? I'm up through Vesuvio now and should get the last one done in the next day or so. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The article's much more of a design history of all the Armstrongs ships built for Italy and has very little on careers. I'll cross-check it against your articles to see if there's anything there that you don't already have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured that was the case, but wasn't sure if there might be anything was too detailed for the class article. Thanks for checking. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just did Etna and nothing new career wise. However, I did find some additional material specific to her and have added it. Also caught a couple of minor errors. I'll go through all the other ships referenced in the article as my class article lumped them all in together and they need to be broken out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fieramosca and Piemonte have required the most work thus far. Check them over to see if my phrasing suits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs), Miyagawa (talk·contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs
Re your reverting of my condensed copy about the Inquiries. I would suggest that since the discovery of the wreck, the alternative theories about torpedoes would become academic, and not suitable for the lede. Valetude (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but since that section of the hull is entirely missing, it's hard to be definite about anything. Remember that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and it would be a bit odd to cover the torpedo theory in the main body ab initio.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that the torpedo theory is still considered viable, despite its dismissal by the Navy, that would need to be made clearer in the main article. (Also, 'Modern theories on the sinking' is a rather odd heading. I assumed that it meant post-wreck discovery.) Generally, this is a very long article, whose lede would have to be condensed-down rather more than usual, to keep it at a manageable length. I would classify the torpedo theory as one of many points of interest that would not qualify for the lede. I do acknowledge, by the way, that this is a featured article, not to be tampered-with lightly. Valetude (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gun caliber conversions
OK, I agree with what you say. I think it 's better. In most cases I just kept the style of what was already written. You can change it without problem. Best Regards--Zumalabe (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated you were going to take a second look at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, can't a fellow ignore his Wiki responsibilities for a couple of weeks? ;-) Thanks for the reminder and I've looked it over again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on the talk page for this article. Just as a note: any editor can review and removed the CSD nom tag if they think it is not justified, except me, as I am the original page creator. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yamoto revert
Dear User talk:Sturmvogel 66. Please feel free to make that minor formatting change if that is what you prefer, as I have seen it elsewhere either way. Thank you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Just to be clear (as I know you are a stickler at warship pages) for some reason when you were done your 12 Dec. 2014 edits to armaments in the Yamoto Infobox that section - armaments - no longer displayed there. It was gone, invisible; contents went right from "Compliment" to "Armor". (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_battleship_Yamato&diff=639635155&oldid=638494280) That's what got me editing that block of data, as I could not figure out why they didn't appear, and no amount of frigging around (even cut-and-pasting directly from the Yamoto Class page (where original class specs displayed)) could get rid of the bug. I was totally baffled, and probably tried a dozen separate edits (and combinations of syntax, data, etc.) before discovering that the armaments from the Musashi page (which were in an ugly format more or less like the one you had revised with your edits at the Yamoto page) would appear when cut-and-pasted to the Yamoto page. So I did so, then laboriously changed it to resemble in form the non-appearing format you had used, making adjustments for different wartime ship configurations, and so on.
Then I repeated that entire time-consuming process in reverse to improve the Musashi page's Infobox format.
It was only when viewing a page on another warship later that I noticed the use of what I thought was a simple 'x' as a separator, so that's what I went back applied to the Yamoto and Musashi pages. Even with new glasses I could not tell until reviewing a few other pages after seeing your revert that a multiplication symbol had been used on some.
If I seem exasperated at this point, perhaps you can understand why. As a gesture of good will I have gone ahead and made the desired symbol change at both pages. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort that you put into all this, but as Featured Articles, they have to follow
WP:MOS down to the last jot and tittle which is why I insisted on the multiplication symbol. I'm not a fan of the 2x3 format as it doesn't tell a casual reader if the ship has two turrets, each with 3 guns, or 3 turrets, each with two guns, which is why I've gone to "three triple 16-inch guns", forex, as that at least gives the configuration of the turrets, although it's far from perfect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I've returned the armament of Musashi's infobox to my original format and have only now realized the extent of the changes that you made to the lede. I'll be looking it over to see if your changes were definite improvements or not, but my first thought is that they seem to be merely your own stylistic preferences rather than any real improvement. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the article went through several thorough prose reviews and I'm reluctant to change any of that text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For completing 17 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea Doria-class battleship, you are hereby awarded the Left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Ships Barnstar
In honor and recognition of your outstanding contributions to ship articles during 2014, you are hereby awarded this Ships Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Epic Barnstar
For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Half Barnstar
For your collaboration with Buggie111 (talk·contribs) on the Featured Article Petropavlovsk-class battleships, you are hereby awarded the Right Half of the Half Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your outstanding contributions to the 2014 Featured List Petropavlovsk-class battleships, you are hereby awarded this Tireless Contributor barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to pull Parsecboy into this conversation as well.
I think this image is featureable, but I'm not quite sure about something. See all the white spots on the hull?
I'm pretty sure at least some of them might be natural, particularly the large white blob below the anchor holes, but I think some aren't. Any advice you can give me would be appreciated, because it's not a high-res enough of image to tell the difference between damage and photograph (on the William H. Seward FP, for instance, you could actually tell the difference between dandruff and damage.) Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that many are natural. Ships tend to rust, not become pearly white—e.g. [4].
[majestic titan] 01:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm thinking possible barnacles or paint chipping or the like? Certainly, I'd find it hard to see how the white splodge under the anchor chain holes could be damage to the photo... Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barnacles don't grow above the waterline, and paint chips will rust over extremely quickly. That's why any navy friends of yours will be able to talk about all of the painting they do/did—it's still a problem today!
[majestic titan] 09:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@The ed17: Right. So, just to check, you're saying I should just remove all the white spots (excepting the big blob at the anchor holes? Sure I've seen discolouration there before)? Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's hard to tell, but I'd guess that they're just damage to the picture. If you look at the water close to the ship, you can see some of the same little dots. Also, on Ed's point - Richard Stumpf's diary comes to mine (he served on SMS Helgoland and lamented the frequent painting work they had to do, even in wartime). Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks! This is why I wanted to talk it over first. Also, if I ever get to give Tuesday's Illustrating History on Wikipedia talk again, I'm quoting this. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I agree with Ed, although I'd probably leave the blob to the right of the hawseholes alone as well as that could be paint removed by an anchor being hoisted up and swinging a bit unexpectedly. But all of the little dots are most likely dust on the negative or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, User: Sturmvogel 66. Perhaps you could clear up an apparent discrepancy which appears at two Wikipedia pages, one you created and the other contributed heavily to. It concerns the range of the Siegfried-Granate shell used by the coastal defense versions of the 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun. One distance is given in the body of each article (with a cite), another in a table below it. Both pages (the preceding, and 38 cm Siegfried K (E) created by you on April 28, 2009), show similar content in each place.
Given the nearly 40% lower mass of the 495 kg Siegfried-Granate shell compared to the 800 kg standard SK C/34 shells, a mere 2,000 yard increase over the heavier shell's 42,000 yard range (as cited in the article body) seems a bit shy. On the other hand, an increase to 60,900 yards (listed, uncited, in the table) seems closer to the sort of gain that might be expected.
Which do you understand to be correct? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the data given in the table seems more plausible, but I only have Gander and Chamberlain to hand at the moment and they give 56 km for the range with the long-range shell. Normally Hogg's pretty reliable, so I'm not sure if I mis-read something or not. You'll need to get a hold of his book and confirm whether the cite is correct or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of digging online appears to sort out the seeming discrepancy: the 40 km (44,000 yd) distance for a 485 kg Siegfried-Granate shell with a "reduced charge is as you cited:
Small charge: 920 mps or 3019 fps range 40000m = 43744 = 24.85 miles
Same shell:
Large charge: 1050 mps = 3445 fps = range 55700m = 60914 yds 34.61 miles
All data cited per Hogg: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=77882 No page # is listed, but it seems quite likely the information above appears in the same pp. 242-243 range you cited, as both the small charge and large charge range #s square with those you posted. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work; go ahead and change the cited info. It seems a near certainty that I misread the info from Hogg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Nothing misread, just incomplete. All good now. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all your comments on the A-class review page.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
And last but not least,
Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
(pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Hi Sturm, Nate and Ed. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at
WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work? Is there anything I left out of the summary you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
USS Arizona (BB-39)
I changed it because on my screen it sets as follows:
... When an earthquake struck Long Beach, California, in 1933, Arizona
's crew provided aid to the survivors....
That's just silly -- and very distracting for the reader.
You cited
WP:SHIPMOS
, but a fast look there does not show this usage. Where specifically do you think it calls for this oddity?
. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with italicized ship names; if you mark up the apostrophe like you did then the "s" is also italicized, which is incorrect since it's not part of the ship's name. I should have said
WP:', specifically the 2nd bullet. Change your screen width and the problem that you noted will probably go away.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
You miss the point. A user should not have to change his screen width to avoid silly typesetting. I fully understand that the possessive "s" is not part of the ship's name, but it seems to me much preferable to set it that way rather than chance having the apostrophe and "s" break across a line.
Also, the cite you give above says nothing about the treatment of ship's names in the possessive. I grant that most printed works will show it as "Arizona's", but I don't think we should have slavish accuracy when it produces typesetting that makes us look silly. Either we should fix the software so that {{
'}} always sets without breaking the line, or we should change our usage.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Surely this is not the only instance where the wrapping error has occurred (or will in the future) - it would be silly to fix one case of it here and ignore the gap in the template coding. See the thread
here for further discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A question
What does "travel lock" mean? Since me and Hchc2009 (he's conducting a GA Review) don't know, I thought you might help. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A travel lock is a brace that secures the gun barrel in place while travelling. It's usually folding and mounted on the outside of the AFV's upper deck except in the latest generation of vehicles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturm. Went over to check on Andrei Pervozvanny-class battleship (it being the last non-list Russian BB), started putting in some of the refs I have on hand, was thinking over potentially putting it up at GAN soon so that we could close off the entire topic outside of sprucing up others ship for runs at FA. Besides the fact that Pervozvanny relies a lot on one source (Melnikov), are there any inherent issues with the article? Buggie111 (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in bad shape, but it's got some ways to go before it's GAN ready, IMO. Refs need to be consolidated, too-detailed info needs to be trimmed and the description needs to be expanded with info from McLaughlin. And we really need to broaden the sources so that 90% of the refs don't refer to Melnikov. Take a look at the individual ship articles and then some of the existing Russian BB class articles for some ideas as to how I like to handle these things.
I'm glad to see that you're becoming more active, if nothing other than purely personal reasons as I've got a bunch of Russian-language articles and books on ships that I really can't do much with by myself. I'm planning on pushing a bunch of Russo-Japanese War BB articles to FA this year to finish a featured topic that I'm working on at User:Sturmvogel 66/Sandbox#Battleships of the Russo–Japanese War and would welcome some help with the Russian ships, if you're interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of North Cape sometime. Shooting and hitting (thanks to radar) in gale-force winds, IIRC. Weather degraded opportunity and accuracy, but certainly didn't stop people from shooting if physically possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
Hello. I would like to ask why you thought that my edit to the page was not an improvement; as it stands now, it's not much clear what the author meant, and as I verified on the source book, the citation is not 100% proper.
The cite is perfectly in order (p. 179 contains the quote as given) so perhaps you consulted a different edition. I don't think that your version is any clearer and the reviewers during its Featured Article review didn't have any problems with the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. If they hadn't any problems, I'll have to respect that, even though I still think that currently it's not perfectly clear the meaning of what Tully meant in his book.Italianhistorian88 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything upcoming on Zeus?
Unless you have some upcoming edits you'd like to suggest, I'd like to remove Nike Zeus from A-class review and re-submit it to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wait for me, I still haven't had time to go through it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: edit. If you had checked my edit summary, and then the article itself, you'd see the hull code was changed to CV(N) following her re-fit and added equip for night ops. Therefore, it's entirely appropriate that it be noted in the lead. (even though the hull code was changed, the article title et al. should remain CV as per wp:commonname.) -
I have never heard of that before either, and the sources for that statement aren't great. DANFS doesn't mention any change. I'm thinking this isn't true information.
This page from the NHHC states that the ship was re-designated CVA-6 in 1952 and CVS-6 the following year, but makes no mention of (CV)N-6. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, I looked for the real DANFS page, but couldn't find it. The copy on HazeGray didn't mention it either. I've deleted the CV(N) bit from the hull classification symbol article as the cv6.org link is dead. This article needs a lot of work, but I don't have the time or inclination to get into it now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's not give up on this yet. In 20 seconds of looking, I found 2 sources mentioning Enterprise CV(N), for night ops; here and here. I know they're considered reliable sources, but it proves I'm not making it up on my own. I saw this mentioned on the History Channel series, Enterprise 360. I'm sure they didn't make it either. It's unfortunate one of the refs is dead (cv6.org), but it was a perfectly good source at the time. Just because that one source is now gone, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If anything, I think it's incumbent upon us to find more sources to support this, rather than dismissing it completely. -
Just found another source, here. And while these are remarks on a board, they are supported by their own source, "The Big E: The Story of the USS Enterprise by Edward P. Stafford (New York: Random House, Inc., 1962).
It's quite plausible that Stafford made a mistake and the rest are derivatives thereof - and I wouldn't exactly trust the network of Ancient Aliens as far as I could throw them. If the USN doesn't mention it (but do mention other re-designations for ship) it's highly unlikely that it actually happened. The squadrons certainly received the N designator, but it does not appear that Enterprise herself did. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show me some official documentation and I'll believe it. I find it quite easy to believe that the ship's crew could have easily generalized from the (N) suffix appended to the squadron designations to the ship's own. Hell, they may even have been told that directly by the ship's officers as a morale booster, but that doesn't mean it was official. Barring further evidence, I think that the most that can be accurately be said is that the ship was informally designated with the N suffix, and that if only confirmed by Stafford. Which I have and will see if I can find a page number. Independence and Saratoga were also night carriers, but I know that the latter was never redesignated...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Page 278 in my pdf of the paperback 1964 edition. Beginning of Chapter 22 since my page numbers aren't reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No such redesignation mentioned in Tillman's book on the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done!
The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the project coordinators, congratulations on placing second in the February 2015 MilHist article-writing contest, with 75 points from 9 articles! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ulysses S. Grant got promoted to FA today (and thank you for the review there, by the way). I wanted to claim it as a Wikicup contribution, but wanted to check with you first. I've done a lot of work on it this year, hundreds of edits, many of them substantive. But I also had co-contributors, and also did a lot of work in 2014. I think it's legit, and if it were a DYK I'd just put it on my contributions page and see what happens, but with hundreds of points at stake, I wanted to make sure it's on the level first. Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting point and I'm conferring with the other judges for their thoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll wait for your decision before posting it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We've decided that your work on the article is eligible, mainly because your edits were far more involved than mere copyediting as is usually the case when an article is being reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear it. I'll add it to my list. Thanks for your help. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Empire of Japan
Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between and and are there periods to their use in Japanese naval articles. I mention it because on the Nisshin article, it is the former and before I go changing it to the ensign, I wanted to make sure I wasn't messing with something I didn't know about. Thanks for your time, Llammakey (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure about the differences between ensigns and jacks, but I would think that the template with the naval suffix is the most appropriate as some nations use a different flag for their ships. I don't believe that the naval flag changed over time, but I'm sure that there's a page covering the Japanese flag's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Legally, I think that the UK's formal name changed to Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the Partition of Ireland, but that not much else did, so I don't really think that we need to make a distinction between the pre- and post-1922 states.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38 cm Siegfried K (E) page reverts
Dear User: Sturmvogel 66. All that edit did was make the table internally consistent (KM/MI). Why the revert? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody uses km or miles for artillery, just meters and yards (unless you're Imperial Russian, who used cables). Which is why I redid everything to reflect that. If you've made these same changes for any other artillery pieces, I'd advise you to revert them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just saw the bottom half the table was in KM/MI so I just made the table internally consistent. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia
. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that
may need a review
. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I do enjoy me some Motown, I really don't have the time nor the resources to contribute to your project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For completing 21 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit, and I am perplexed; why put the info I had in the "Design/modification" section, which details the technical aspects, and not in the "Service" section, which is about the broader terms of service of these ships and considerations about their role, which in my opinion concerns the aspects I've put forward? The point of my edit was to evidence a position held by some naval historians about the broad decision to modernize these ships, not a critic on the technical aspects.
Your edit raised a valid point, one that I think is better placed in the modification section than in the service section. The overall design section discusses the rationale for these ships and expanding and criticizing their reconstruction there is a better fit than the service section, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you attribute the statement to specific historians so that the paragraph doesn't use
WP:weasel words like "some" and can you add any other historians who agree with the statement? Also that paragraph is all one sentence; I'd suggest breaking it in half, perhaps at "moreover".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
this A-class review for me, since this was my nom and I am not a coordinator. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you withdrawing the nomination? From a cursory look it seems to have the requisite number of supports.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia
. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
I agree the vision statement for 7th Signal Command (United States) reads like an ad. They usually do... On the other hand, it's authoritative. It's their commanders chosen words for what the commands stretch goals are. Perhaps some context should help? Rbcwa (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but so what? Why would anyone talk about doing anything else than excelling while supporting their troops and their families? Why would any commander admit that he was going to sacrifice his entire unit to ensure his own personal success regardless price to his troops? When they're all fundamentally similar, they lose all real value and become simple puffery, IMO. Calling them stretch goals is a misapprehension of what they're really all about and how unimportant they really are. They're nothing like a commander's mission statement in an op order, which is probably the single most important bit of text in the entire order.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formidable
Hey Sturm, I found this while searching for other things. Hopefully it will help a bit when you get to
Hey Sturm. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at
WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
I expected you to revert the edit...not so quickly, but I expected it.
Please consider my reasons for the edit. If you still disagree, then I'll ask Magioladitis to arbitrate.
1. Your invalid ISBN causes a
Checkwiki
error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", which appears in a listing. Different people from Checkwiki will constantly need to handle this error.
I believe that the code stops any problems with the code, so it shouldn't cause anyone any extra work. As I've repeatedly stated the normal procedure when following up for a WorldCat link _works_. Try it for yourself and don't be put off by the invalid ISBN header on the book source page. Clicking on the WorldCat link there takes you to the book's entry, just like it should.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. If we allow this invalid ISBN, then everyone else will want their invalid ISBN.
I only care if the link to WorldCat works or not; since it does your fundamental point is invalid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the 13-digit...Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007
That's all very well and good, but I prefer to use the type of ISBN that a book was published with. That page isn't part of
WP:MOS, or even a guideline, as far as I can tell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
4. The comment in your article stated "<!--ISBN leads to the book on Worldcat-->". I've shown you the correct way to get to the same WorldCat page using the "oclc" template.
OCLC # is redundant as I demonstrated above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seriously, only history-related people revert my edits that fix an invalid ISBN-10 with a valid ISBN-13.
I understand your desire to preserve history, but...is the purpose of the ISBN in the citation to exactly duplicate the publication, or is the purpose to generate a valid "Book sources" page so readers can locate a copy of the publication? I think the latter. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with using 13 digit ISBN for older books is that it often isn't included in the book at all, so someone won't know whether the paper copy sitting in front of them is the edition that was used as a source in an article or not. While the ISBN number on Afridi to Nizam may be theoretically invalid, it is what is printed on the book, so readers can clearly see that they are using the correct book, which using the theoretically correct isbn 13 won't confirm.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmabteilung name change discussion
The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [5] Thanks, BMK (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian and Sturm, this FA that you guys nommed will hit the Main Page soon. I didn't change much for the TFA column. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb reads well, tks Dan. Have to admit I prefer either of the other two pictures in the article though, as they're both sharper than one in use at the moment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even think about the picture, but I have to agree with Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good today, precious again! - + GA likes GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:
This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.
Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.
Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.
The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.
It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on
UTC
time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.
Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!
If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.
After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
, etc). You can see on that project page that I've divided them into language groups - this is based on the language of the description (and therefore the object's owner), not based the originating country of the object - often items relating to France items will be in the "German" [language] section, and vice versa.
If you're interested in this material, I would very much appreciate if you could have a look at some of the items and perhaps use them in WP articles directly, or help me check their categories and indicate 'suggested articles' next to the images on the project page. Sincerely, Wittylama 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help out, but the Commons link that you gave doesn't work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sturmvogel 66 - I see you've already started!
When you do categorise an image, if you have the time and if you can think of a good/logical Wikipedia article that it could go in, can you also write the name of that article next to the image on the project page? That way other people coming after you can get a good idea where they might be able to use it in their own language-wikipedia to. Some of the files also have a tracking-category: Commons:Category:Europeana 1914-1918 batch upload: needs checking. If you are happy with the file and you see this category, feel free to remove it so I know not to check it again later. Thanks! Wittylama 17:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nakajima production figures
As someone who does a lot of military research on Wikipedia how do you handle an obvious error in the source data that keeps getting reverted by people who don't understand the problem?
There is no way the factory only operated for 4 months a year throughout the war and the typesetters put the first four months not the quarters.
It has been corrected and reverted twice. Ryan.opel (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted his changes and posted a query asking him to justify himself on his talk page. Appears to be a case of subtle vandalism, but let's see... If he persists, I'll get an admin to look this over and either ban him or lock down the article, or both, since I rather expect that he'll continue as a sock if banned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid starting a revert war: RETAIN is irrelevant in this case, since it applies only to English varieties (i.e. whether an article is written according to British/Australian/US/Canadian etc. English-language spelling and grammatical conventions); it doesn't apply to the order of units, which is specified by
strong national ties to the UK or USA is expected to use the SI-first unit presentation style consistently. The article in question was not previously consistent in its style, which my edit attempted to fix. The fact that other editors had previously left the article in a MOS-disapproved style (for an article about Russia) is not a good reason for leaving it so. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I use the unit in use when the ship was in service for the bulk of its career. If it's hit by shells from a country that uses a different unit, then I use that unit, so most of my articles use both types. Nobody fusses over this because the MOS says most non-scientific articles, not all such articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this logic is that it, if followed consistently, it would require articles about Greco-Roman history to give measurements in units such as stadia and Roman miles and articles about Chinese history to use Chinese customary units, which while historically authentic would not be very meaningful to most people at en-wp. The convention that is normally followed is that articles about a country's history, or other topics relating to that country, need to put first the units from the system that is normally used in that country (i.e. today, not 100 years ago). For example, articles about Australian history use the metric system, because virtually any modern Australian publication uses metric units, and Australians would typically expect to read articles about their country in those units (indeed, most younger Australians would probably struggle to make sense of imperial measurements). The fact that their forebears in the 19th century (say) wouldn't have used the metric system is basically irrelevant, since we're not writing Wikipedia for the benefit of people who lived generations ago.
Without wanting to sound like an asshole, I need to point out that "my articles" is problematic phrasing: nobody
somebody wants to (from my own past experience; I'm not accusing you of that). Archon 2488 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
By no means are you being an asshole, but I do understand the implications of what you're saying; I just don't agree since every measurement is converted on first use in my articles. So I'd expect an Australian to understand one of my articles on a pre-metrification Australian ship just fine. Your argument, and that of the MOS itself, has a great deal more merit when no conversions are given so that people can't grasp the scale of things properly. Since my articles can be fully understood by people on both sides of the Imperial/metric scales, I view it more as a matter of taste. And, quite honestly, since I have a large number of FA, A-, and GA-class articles under my belt, most reviewers seem to agree as no one's ever challenged me on this particular point before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the MOS is to ensure cross-project consistency, and where that is not possible, consistency across a given category of article (e.g. articles about the USA generally use US customary units first followed by metric conversion). It's also important to follow local practice in order to ensure NPOV; it wouldn't be appropriate for an article about Ireland to be written in US English simply because it was written by an American (this is what ENGVAR and STRONGNAT are for), and likewise it wouldn't be appropriate for an article about Australia to use a unit presentation format that is atypical of Australian publications. Of course readers can understand a wide variety of things ("color" vs. "colour") but that is hardly the point; the point is that the article should reflect current usage in the relevant country. It's not supposed to come down to individual taste. In any case, the equivalent Russian WP article gives the dimensions mostly in metric. Also, the
old Russian units were based on English units, but they were quite different nonetheless. I'm not convinced that following English/Imperial practice would actually be helpful or meaningful to WP readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope
The Wikipedia Library
has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
For completing 21 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturmvogel! I am afraid I have become ensnared with User EyeTruth again. I mentioned your name as a character witness at the Adminstartor's Edit Warring page. Just an FYI. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gunbirddriver you really don't need to use those cleverly picked words to try and polarize the situation. Why didn't you use the same words on the talkpage of the admin that penalized your edit-warring? BTW, Sturmvogel hi. You should check out and may want to contribute to the discussion on the Prokhorovka talkpage, thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Tarr
Thanks for the speedy and efficient review! FunkyCanute (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just glad that I noticed that you wanted it reviewed by a certain date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits on Cressy class armament
You insist on a link that says Hotchkiss pointing to a Vickers gun ? When the Vickers gun only appeared years after the ships were built ? And notes explaining what pdr means do not belong in infoboxes.Rcbutcher (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a mistake that I'll fix. But the cwt abbreviation needs to be explained on first appearance, which is the infobox. It's repeatedly passed muster at FAC, so you seem to be the only one with a problem with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, conversion redundant if linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care if you add conversions to linked weapons in the main body, but you need to have them properly formatted with no hyphen if you abbreviate the measurement. If you do so, I do expect the cwt weight to remain as that's part of the gun's name. However, I'm less comfortable doing that with weapons that have nominal sizes like the 18-inch torpedo, which we both know is really 17.7 in (450 mm). So which do you convert, the nominal or the actual size? I figure let the reader decide if he clicks the link. Otherwise, he probably doesn't care. All that said, I would like to thank you for correcting me on the proper model of 6-inch and 3-pdr guns; it helped me catch yet another error in the type of 12-pounder gun that I had listed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm part of a team here ! I will think about the points you made. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I appreciate your consideration. Another point to consider is that we ought to strive to keep the length of the infoboxes as short as we can as I've had several complaints that ship infoboxes dominate their articles. So a case could be made that we really shouldn't give the exact model of gun, or the type of boilers, etc. there as that will sometimes stretch an entry into two lines, depending of the size of the monitor being used. I'm still very inconsistent about doing that myself as I've got years of doing otherwise, but just something else to consider. Don't mistake me, though, I do agree with you that unlinked weapons should be converted just like any measurement, in the infobox and on first use in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I gather your attention on the topic of the Ki-84?
I find the production numbers which are given in the table somewhat shady. I've left a comment on its talk page, may you join the conversation? Thank you.
Frank Tarr, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I found instances of close paraphrasing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes
, who earned 205 points.
The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.
After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.
Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.
16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
This was not a very helpful edit. Sourced information on the armament are a must. And I´m positive the "Gröner" book wont be enough. Alexpl (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me to add the armament paragraph and references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources belong in the main body, not the infobox, FYI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her anti-aircraft armament was significantly increased during the war. Altough she never received the infamous "Barbara" AA-upgrade, its still noteworthy. At least you should give the date of the AA-arment you describe. Alexpl (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that can be handled either as a separate paragraph or integrated into her chronological history. I don't have time to work on her any further for the foreseeable future, but you appear to have HRS and the energy to fill in the blanks, or at least to clarify my text as it needs clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about ships is that there's a lot of boilerplate common to ships so you can copy-paste and tweak to suit pretty easily. Downside is that none are high priority or important and very few are old enough to get points for age. So Comme ci, comme ça!
Nakajima Ki-43
Hello Sturmvogel 66,
May I gather your attention on the topic of the Ki-43?
Since the airframe production values share the same ref. as for Ki-84, it should be rectified and clarified. I find the accuracy of the quarterly (period) questionable and not very representative. What you think about it?
If you don't mind, I'm going to change it. Regards Bouquey (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 09:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
Table in Friedman can not be taken seriously in - everything is messed up.--Inctructor (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what then is the alternative, Conways?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically for scouts (Boadicea, Blonde, Active) there though nothing is messed up. For Adventure, Forward, Patnfinder, Sentinel is no alternative. For destroyers March, Edgar J. (1966). British Destroyers: A History of Development, fuller.--Inctructor (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petebutt
why are you being such an arse? Look I know I don't own the article, but I at least have the right to edit what I have written and make it satisfactory in my eyes. Please do not revert my edits again without discussing it with me first. I am not going to edit war over this. i shall undo you=r revert one final time. --Petebutt (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS says not to alter citation style, none of the other editors of the article have done so. Why should you be any different, regardless if you started the article or not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the
heavy wildfire smoke
has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
I think that snuck up on me while I wasn't looking. I should have simply deleted "the ship" rather than just revert your change. I've done that now, so that particular infelicity has been deleted and the article opens with her name, just as it passed FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your change. Sca (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third-rate
I came across an article about third-rate sailing ships that has had a request for improvement of citations at the top since February 2013. Since you are interested in military history, I thought you might like to work on it. Corinne (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have the resources for sailing ships in detail, but I do actually have the three books by Winfield in the references. I'll try to put aside the time to bring this up to speed, but I don't actually know when I'll get around to it. Thanks, though, for thinking of me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-French War (1778–83). So far, I haven't seen any major problems, but I do have a few questions. I wonder if you are too busy right now to answer the few questions I already have and any more that I may have as I go through the article. If you are too busy, can you suggest another editor who might be able to help? Corinne (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not really my period, but I know a little about it. You might try User:Auntieruth55, she's a specialist on the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars that were only about a decade behind your subject.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sturm, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at
WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks fine, except that "fire control" needs a hyphen as a compound adjective. I'll take care of that little detail on the article itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, tweaked the article and the TFA blurb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[majestic titan] 04:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Probably; there was a similar scandal in the US about rigged costs for armor steel used in the contract for the Russian battleship Retvizan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from
[majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Congratulations!
Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2015 – September 2016
In recognition of your successful election as the Lead Co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with the Lead Coordinator's stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[majestic titan] 04:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well done, Sturm! Really pleased that you got the nod. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Barnstar
The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from September 2014 to September 2015, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been looking at the HMS Argus entry after the "aerial photos heard 'round the world'" of the new possible Chinese aircraft carrier hull at Dalian. One of the thoughts in the Chinese aircraft carrier programme article is what might be the best way to train first captains of these first vessels (naval helicopter pilots or fast jet pilots). But my instant thought was how were the captains of Argus, Hermes, Langley, Eagle etc picked, plus Hosho. Do you have any info on how the captain of Argus was selected? Are there any pattern in how the captain-selection process worked? Buckshot06(talk) 08:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no information on how they were selected. All I really know about the whole topic is that the RN persisted in using non-aviators in command of carriers throughout WW2 while the USN, by law, specified that aviators had to be in command of aviation ships (including seaplane tenders) as of the late 1920s. And I think that the IJN was like the RN. I honestly don't know if it really makes much difference whether a rotary- or fixed-wing would be selected as doctrine and procedures will have to be developed from scratch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!
Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!
Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.
The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Vegetable
Thank you for reviewing, and presumably passing Vegetable, at GAN. Should not the review page be archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On further thoughts, perhaps a "rogue editor" has added a GA icon to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, a bot takes care of all that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Russian monitor Novgorod
On 3 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian monitor Novgorod, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Novgorod's unusual design (top deck layout pictured) gave the warship a reputation as one of the worst ever constructed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian monitor Novgorod. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Wow, that was a quick assessment of "bad copyedits". It seems you actually like bad grammar, bad syntax, missing punctuation and redirects up the wazoo in Wikipedia articles. That revert is a reflection on your lack of writing skills; now deal with it. — QuicksilverT@ 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just have to do without your sterling services.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid activities where an oversight, mistake or rash decision could cost you a limb or your life, e.g., aviation. — QuicksilverT@ 15:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, from your POV, I've survived all such endeavors without loss of either limb or life and expect to do so for quite a while longer based on past precedent. Have you had your bile levels checked recently? You seem to be spewing an excess of such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for an awesome 34 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sturmvogel 66. Your edit summary for this edit indicates a reversion of "Vandalism". I was wondering: is it not possible that the IP editor's change was made in good faith, based upon the (mistaken) assumption that "ship struck" means "struck by a bomb"? By definition, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not considered to be vandalism (WP:Vandalism). Perhaps an edit summary explaining the meaning of "ship struck" could have been used when reverting? Just a thought – thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look back in the history to May and you'll see a whole host of edits trying to change the date like this IP editor did. I can only presume that it's the same guy in IDIDN'THEARTHAT mode.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)
Greetings. I am curious whether the
Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) article is eligible for GA status since the battle is ongoing.--Catlemur (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I would be inclined to think not, but you should probably ask at WT:MilHist as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:MiG-3vu.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MiG-3vu.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the
Hi there, looks like you made this edit. There is a mismatch between visible name of gun (QF 12 pounder 18 cwt) and actual link (QF 12 pounder 12 cwt). Which is correct ? Also : 12-pounder seems a pretty puny armament for a cruiser : didn't she ever get the 4-inch upgrade ? I dimly remember making an edit about this a long time ago but can't remember the circumstances. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just reread the HMS Adventure article and it contains : "She underwent another refit in August 1912, about which time her main guns were replaced by nine 4-inch (102 mm) guns,[5]". I think the infobox needs to state both original and upgraded armament, the way other articles do. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I only do original armament unless the ship was reconstructed, in which case I give it a new infobox showing only the different data, like Conte di Cavour-class battleship. There is the qualifier in the infobox that says "as built" so people will know that changes were made over the ship's lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do need to clarify the exact type of 12-pdr although I don't think that my sources were real clear about that themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Light cruiser HMS Adventure underway c1912.jpg appears to show the 12-pdr 18 cwt version... (judging by barrel length and length of jacket extending way down the barrel). Also ... for some insane reason the 18 cwt gun appears from photographs to have lacked a shield... God help its crew. IMHO the 12 cwt gun would have been useless for the role. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you're probably right, but I need to check my sources as I updated all of those ships during the stub contest and figured that I'd have to come back later and fix minor errors that I didn't have time to further research at the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Visiting Scholar Position
Hey Sturmvogel 66. Great to meet you this weekend! If you are interested in the Visiting Scholar positions, we would recommend applying through these instructions. @Ryan (Wiki Ed): will make sure to match you with one of the universities that makes the most sense and/or try to find one that can support your MilHist/Ships interests (maybe the Naval Academy can support something like this?). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Aboard
Thanks for joining
GLAM Pritzker! If you need the Pritzker Librarians to check print citations for you, please email us at [email protected] or leave a message on my talk page. Fair winds and following seas! TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Zatevakhin
Since you assessed Zatevakhin as C class for not meeting coverage and accuracy, what can I do to improve it?Kges1901 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key question is if he had a family or not. If you can add that info, I'll revisit the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added information about social originKges1901 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but I meant did he marry and/or have children? Sorry that I wasn't clearer on that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is no information on his marital statusKges1901 (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Then it remains incomplete, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no evidence in any sources of marriages or children, then the person probably didn't marry or have children.Kges1901 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do your sources mention marriages and families for the other generals?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
French destroyer Jaguar has been nominated for Did You Know
Just wanted to say thanks for the link to HMS Renown (1916). That was actually helpful. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found it useful. Problem with limiting things to only 1 extra infobox is deciding which other date to use. I generally use for major reconstruction, but the US BBs have a variety of reasonable choices available. I'd probably use the main post-Pearl Harbor rearmament/reconstruction with 5"/38 guns and rebuilding of the superstructures, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must again say Thank You! The comments you left on the infobox page were very helpful in explaining what you feel I'm doing wrong. Please believe that my intentions are to make the page better but I'm starting to understand now what the issue is. ie.-cite the armament that's being use in the infobox but I don't need to cite caliber, etc. Leave those to be expanded in the body of the article. I'm sorry if I've been slow in seeing what the problem was. I haven't gone back and checked the 1914 ref. but I've noticed that even though a ship wasn't laid down until a certain date they are in the planning for several years before and I think that's where the difference came in. I will be more observent about this in the future. Ships obviously change between planning and laying down. I think part of the misunderstanding is you and Parsecboy said to keep the infobox brief I thought you ment limit the number of fields that are filled in but you ment to keep the fields brief? Pennsy22 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for blowing up your talk page but I just reread the Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide as suggested. I need to remove the reference cites from the infobox right? And keep the entries brief. What about adding links to other wiki pages in the infobox. Am I adding too many? Thank you for your patience.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sturm, not deliberate
My Rv of your paragraph was totally unintentional, and I didn't know I had made it until receiving a not that you had reverted me.. The Big Thumb Syndrome strikes again, as I scrolled down through watchlist. sorry. cheers. Moriori (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if it might be something like that, after I went to your user page to see who had the temerity to do such a thing. No harm, no foul.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA Cup
You're really giving me a run for my money there, aren't you? ;) Just wanted to let you know that there is a little mistake on your submissions' page: The Zahamena National Park review needs to be GA2, not GA1. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've left things a bit too late and won't finish all of the reviews before the end of the contest, but who knows? Thanks for letting me know about the mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) I also saw that you did some reviews that are not on your submission page. Any reason for that? Do I need to account for them? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<Cautiously> Maybe, may be not ;-) I claimed a bunch in a fit of last-minute competitiveness, but I don't know if I'll get the reviews completed in the next few days. I think that I've listed every review that I've actually started.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imperator Pavel
An added comma woulda worked, but your approach does, too. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My preference for ledes is not to give years for construction, but rather decades, with the exact dates in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are three reasons to consider a different approach, especially here. First is the early overlap with Dreadnought as a ship-in-being- and Satsuma and Michigan, more conceptually. The next is that the first decade of each century can be ambiguously described. Finally, there's a big difference between "1906-1911," "1909-1914," and "1901-1919", but all would show as "the first two decades of the 20th century." Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And all of that is better dealt with in the main body. All I want for the opening sentence to do is to orient the reader as to when, what and who for the ship was built.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree, especially for critical time periods. A US aircraft from 1940 is a very different beast from one from '49, any plane from 1914 could be a world apart from post war, pre-dreadnought vs post, &cet, &cet, ad naus. Putting a firm date in the lead tells a lot to a knowledgeable reader, and takes little away from others. Anmccaff (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, IMO, the characterization of her as a predreadnought satisfies all of your objections as to her place during that time of transition. So no need for unnecessary detail in the first sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
St Geoge's Academy GA
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to review St George's Academy at GAN—it's greatly appreciated. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A big high-five for Sturmvogel 66 for putting on the Hard Hat and build-build-building on 607 stubs. Well done! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on winning the contest - that was no doubt a surprise! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very true; I didn't look at those 1500 mushroom articles until yesterday, so I didn't realize the extent of TAP's copy-pasting. Makes me glad that he lost his RfA if he was so focused on collecting all the hats that he'd stoop to such stupidity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I did not mean for it to come across that way.Don Brunett (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
You're welcome. A question though; did the TF actually control all of both tank battalions or just companies of each?
It seems there is some mystery at the moment. Me and the guys have been discussing this over the past few days. I know 1-41 gutted Echo Company to fill in holes throughout the rest of the battalion. There were many as 1-41 was understaffed. 4-3 FA received soldiers from the 3rd ID to do the same. Two of them were in my section and very good soldiers. I do believe all of 2/66 and 3/66 participated.Don Brunett (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
The question really is if organized units from the other battalions were assigned/attached. They need to be identified, as your current order of battle implies that the TF was the equivalent of a brigade in size and I just can't see that happening when the brigade staff of 2AD (Forward) was present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned those soldiers filled in and were members of 1-41 sections. They were not utilized as individual companies. I can keep researching and adding as I uncover more info.Don Brunett (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
I removed those not assigned to Task Force 1-41. I got confused and accidently added ones who were part of Task Force Iron.Don Brunett (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Stub contest Lucky dip
Three winning tickets!
Congratulations to Sturmvogel 66 for winning an additional 75 quid for three winning tickets in the stub lucky dip! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the Wikicup table didn't update at 00:13 GMT like it usually does. Last time was at 20:13 GMT. — Calvin999 00:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be because Miyagawa's closing it today, dunno, but I'll ask.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The table just updated but it added up and totalled my submissions a bit wrong so I've manually adjusted it. — Calvin999 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes may have been problematic; contact Miyagawa to make sure that everything is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question about DYK and the Wikicup
Per this thread, does this make sense to you ([8])? That submission was 5x expanded and a GA, but Miyagawa says that because I listed GA as a reason at DYK the entry is ineligible for Wikicup points even though it was also expanded five times. The version I nomed had 1,012 words ([9]), and the version when I started to expand it had 177 words ([10]). So this was both a 5x expansion and a GA, but Miyagawa says my "intention" was GA, so it doesn't count. RO(talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your post and the judges are discussing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, we have found that your DYK nom met all of the requirements for an ordinary DYK and you will be credited for those points. For the judges,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!
Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.
The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.
The judges of the 2nd Annual GA Cup would like to congratulate you for making 2nd Place in the GA Cup! Thank you so much for participating and we'd like to reward this barnstar for your great enthusiasm in reducing the GAN backlog. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Viktor Leonov
Think you can find me a good picture of him? I did a lot of work on that article. He was a great man.Don Brunett (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Did you search using Google Image?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a pic that has been used in a couple of articles. That makes it ok to use here. Correct?Don Brunett (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Elsewhere on the web? No, not necessarily. It depends on the copyright status of the photo in the place of first publication and here in the US. See Commons:Licensing for a quick tutorial on copyright issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typpe 80/88 page
Hi,
Your renaming of the page caused a double redirect. It would be nice of you to fix the links to the page.
There is also a fact that now none of the pages are standardized. The Type 59 and Type 69 have no tank suffix. The type 80 is the only one with the main battle tank suffix. And lastly the Type 96 and 99 have tank suffixed.
Type 59 lacks context and needs to tell a reader what it is. Tank is fine or MBT, or whatever, but a reader needs to distinguish between a Type 59 assault rifle and a Type 59 tank. Perhaps they should all be Type XX tank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon Gollob
Hi, I have been working on the Gordon Gollob article for some time now. I am struggling with his higher command role. I was wondering if you had access to some more information on this phase of his life. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean about his time as Jafü and General der Jagdflieger? I really haven't seen much published in English on the Luftwaffe leadership in general during this period other than Steinhoff's books, which you should probably read, although they're a bit polemical, IIRC. Most all of the material that I've seen concentrates on the tactical and operational aspects of fighting the Combined Bomber Offensive. You might try the recent books by Donald Caldwell on the bomber war; I haven't actually seen them myself, but they've gotten good reviews, and may have some useful material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Go ahead and renominate the article and ping me once you've done that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I noticed your contributions to Wikipedia Asian Month and thought you deserve some recognition; keep it up! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010/GA1
Sturmvogel 66, you opened this GA review a month ago, but haven't been back yet to start the review. If you aren't planning to review it after all, let me know and I'll make sure it gets back into the reviewing pool with its seniority intact; otherwise, I'll look forward to seeing the review commence in the next few days. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, just to let you know that I'll be putting this back into the reviewing pool in 48 hours absent a definitive statement by you before then that you intend to proceed with this review in the very near future. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something
...completely different! ;) Hey Strum, I suspect this is a little outside of your wheelhouse, but would you mind taking a look at my latest FAC? It failed last time, only because no one reviewed it. I'd really like for it to fail again for the same reason, so I'm canvassing (not really) my buddies here to help out. I'd appreciate it. Don't know if you celebrate Thanksgiving, but if so, I hope yours was as nice as mine. If not, best to you anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award you this as a token of the project’s appreciation for your contributions during the October 2015 Military history project backlog drive. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Thank you kindly. And the same to you and yours.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge,
Featured Pictures
; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
Nice to see this up as TFA today. I seem to recall some very pleasant copyediting of this a couple of years ago. It's looking good. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, sir. A rather contentious FAC, but it did produce a superior article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mikhail Tikhonov
You rated Mikhail Tikhonov as C class for not having any family data. After multiple boolean searches with "Михаил Фёдорович Тихонов" and Russian words for family, children, son, etc., I failed to come up with anything. If a Red Army officer had a family, it can usually be easily found. For example, Kuzma Grebennik had a son who was mentioned in another general's memoir and that son also gave an interview to a Ukrainian news site. The existence of Nikolay Voronov's marriages and descendants was proven by his wife and son being mentioned in the recollections of others. All of this means that there is the possibility that Tikhonov remained a bachelor throughout his life, and the only data about his ancestors that can be found is his social background. Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: can you archive this page? It just reached "425 sections" milestone. 333-blue 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan FR Fireball - excessive cross-references
The article has vastly excessive cross-references, this is a little known plane and so anyone who is interested in reading this page would have at least a moderate level of familiarity with such basic concepts as squadron, aircraft carriers, carrier, prototype, fuselage, cockpit, rounds, wind tunnel, centre of gravity, catapault, drag, embarkation, decommissioned, and spun. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; you cannot presume to know the knowledge level of a reader other than the basics. I was amused to see that you failed to catch the actual duplicate links that I'd forgotten about when I originally expanded the article despite your zeal to remove perfectly good links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree, those are extremely basic concepts/terms that do not need to be there, I will raise this on the talk page. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you like, although I find your desire to eliminate links that experienced readers can simply ignore unfathomable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 18 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Thewellman -- Thewellman (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi, thank you for participation in Wikipedia Asian Month. Please fill out the survey that we use to collect the mailing address. All personal information will be only used for postcard sending and will be deleted immediately after the postcard is sent. If you have any question, you may contact me at Meta. Hope to see you in 2016 edition of Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Ivanhoe (D16)
A few questions.
The speed of 36 knots, or 35.5 knot?
Icarus carried a maximum of 455 long tons (462 t) of fuel oil: And here Icarus?
The turbines developed a total of 36,000 shaft horsepower or 34,000.--Inctructor (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"ICARUS", "IMOGEN" 36,000, other 34,000?--Inctructor (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catches; I've revised all of the I-class ships accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
First, I would like to state as a long-time lurker that I appreciate the effort you put into articles and your MILHIST co-ordination efforts. However, could you please explain your edit summary comment that the English variance guidelines do not apply to the First World War?
I did not note any such rule on that page. I would also note that British memorials, official histories, and (until recently) the vast majority of books published by British (and the Commonwealth and Europeans on a whole) use the term First World War/Great War, with their American counterparts using World War I. I note that the British sources used in the article utilize the term Great War, and the navbox at the bottom for British ships also uses First World War.
It's not a variety of English to say one over the other, even though there is a general preference in the US and UK, so ENGVAR doesn't really apply. It's also not a hard and fast difference, unlike, say, harbour vs. harbor. It's worth pointing out that both of our articles on the world wars use the "American" formulation even though I believe they both use British English in the articles. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For everything, but particularly for the
[majestic titan] 19:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I had a little help, doncha ya know? Now if people would just stop messing with the article...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a bit—the majority was you! I went through and fixed the introduced errors.
[majestic titan] 05:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
[majestic titan] 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Among our articles, that might only be topped by Arizona. Pretty impressive in any case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that uses a
[majestic titan] 05:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Another question, one that I might have asked before...
[majestic titan] 08:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Parkes says, "That the Turks strongly resented the transfer is hardly to be wondered at; but the contention that it was instrumental in bringing them in against us can now be dismissed." I think that this one of those sorts of points that ought to be discussed in a lengthy footnote in the article that most closely focuses on Turkish entry. Ghod knows that there's enough books on the start of WW1 that somebody ought to have covered the Turks using their own documents, but I've never read much on that myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly that clear cut. The British delayed delivering the ships on 21 July and on 29 July placed armed guards around Resadiye and Sultan Osman I. According to Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace, the Turks already knew the British were going to seize the ship, at the latest by 1 August, and probably as early as the 29th. Fromkin suggests that the Ottomans offered Sultan Osman I to the Germans, knowing full well that the British would seize it anyway, in order to secure a defensive treaty with Germany. The relevant pages are 57-61 (and should be viewable in google books). Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems ripe for a footnote shared between the two articles. We don't have to be definitive, we can just note the historiological (yay big word) discrepancy.
[majestic titan] 07:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Fuze Keeping Clock
Please take a look at the talk page for
Fuze-Keeping Clock. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Fury (H76) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Fury (H76) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
There is plenty of info to expand the article on the pages linked from here - Code Letters, dimensions, tonnages, engine details etc. Code Letters were changed in 1934 so you should check before and after that date. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a
WikiProject Good Articles
backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [email protected]!
The article HMS Forester (H74) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Forester (H74) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, it's been over three weeks since the nominator responded to your review. Can you please return at your next opportunity and continue the review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your revert of my edit on the above, I'd be interested to know which policy/guideline forbids the improvement of an article, featured or otherwise. Thanks. Philg88 ♦talk 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing forbids improvement; I simply don't believe that it's an improvement. The article had a rather contentious FAC and if the reviewers had thought that the info that you want to add was important, it would have been mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that the introduction should generally not have information that is not mentioned in the text of the article itself. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If and when I remember I'll find a suitable reference and add a sentence about the "Black Battlefleet" to the body of the article. Philg88 ♦talk 10:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,
If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi, can I interest you and page stalkers in participating in April? Up to £200 in Amazon vouchers and books up for grabs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Cambrian (1916) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Cambrian (1916) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Individual
Kaidai type submarine
articles
Good evening. Not sure where we are crossing wires here, so thought I'd open a discussion.
I understand and appreciate your reversions of some of the edits I made on March 12, definitely too much obvious info (a Japanese military submarine, launched in 1940 - I probably didn't need to mention it was active in World War II).
The minor edits I added on March 15 are just that, minor. They also have reasons. 1) Putting the PROPER link is absolutely good housekeeping. The entry {{Sclass|Kaidai|submarine}}) has to go through a redirect to reach Kaidai, while "type" (rather than "class") is the actual name in that article - so it is legit to replace it with the direct link and the actual name ("type") in the linked article. 2) Adding the original 2-digit name is a small edit and an ACCURATE reflection of the name of the submarines. I only came across this because I had found a few redlinks trying to talk about the 2-digit names, and researching finally led to the 3-digit updates. 3) Changing to cruiser submarine, rather than attack submarine, was to make all 18 of the articles CONSISTENT, as a number of the articles already identified the Kaidai subs as "cruiser subs". So, change all to "cruiser" or change all to "attack"? A different existing article provided the answer - the actual Cruiser submarine article specifically shows the Kaidai subs as one of the LISTED EXAMPLES of cruiser submarines from WWI and WWII.
I'm not as confident about adding the section-specific link to the class,
KD7-class
, but thought it might help clarify the slightly confusing distinction (as laid out in the Kadai article), between Kadai being a general "type", itself "divided into seven classes and two sub-classes" (wording as used in the Kadai article). It is still a minor edit, providing a direct link to the "Kaidai VII (I-176 class)" section of the article, but it may be odd to have a link to an article immediately followed by a link to a section of the same article.
I'll check back here for your thoughts. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Any input? I'd like to put these few items back into the individual articles, but would appreciate your thoughts first. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the dialogue? Going ahead with these, as per the reasons above. Jmg38 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've been a bit busy. Anyway, you can't use other wiki articles as sources, so you need to find published sources that classify these boats as cruiser submarines. (BTW, the Kaidai-type submarine article doesn't call them cruiser submarines at all.) And that's a bit harder than you might think. Conways doesn't use the cruiser submarine terminology at all, calling them first-class submarines. And Carpenter & Polmar call the KD6s fleet submarines (p. 96) and the KD7s attack submarines (p. 105). The KD4s and 5s are referred to as large submarines (p. 94). Thus, I chose to ignore the whole thing as the two best sources on Japanese submarines, IMO, don't use that terminology and I didn't want to get involved in quibbles if they are or aren't like the one that we're having now.
So what sources do you show calling them cruiser submarines? Neither your opinion nor mine matter, only those of published sources.
I prefer to put the renumbering in the main body, but I can understand why you want to add that to the lede. So that's OK.
Your preferred use of Kaidai type (KD6B Type) (to use one example) in the infobox looks awkward to me because "type" is used far too often in close proximity. My original Kaidai-class submarine (KD6B Type) avoids that pitfall, but isn't as clear as it should be because the Kaidai subs weren't a class, but a type. What I think would work best is to use a variant of your usage: [[Kaidai-type submarine|''Kaidai'' type]] (KD6B Sub-class) (note that I changed the name of the article to include the missing hyphen). This standardizes the usage of sub-class in the infobox and the article body.
Similarly your preferred Kaidai type of cruiser submarine of the KD6B sub-class in the infobox is awkward because you've got too many "of"s and the questionable cruiser submarine terminology. Unless you've got some really good sources that call these late-model Kaidai types cruiser submarines, I prefer to avoid the whole issue and use a variant of the language that I suggested for the infobox: [[Kaidai-type submarine|''Kaidai''-type]] submarine of the KD6B sub-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miramar database access
hey I have no idea what the Miramar database is but it has to do with ships, and access is available (or so the banner above my watchlist says)
I feel a bit better about it now - I ran a Google search based on an alternative spelling and came up with a hit on Trove. Then after running a proper search there, I found a few more hits including details of the Captain at the battle and a surprising article which was virtually a bio of the ship and equipment. I'm going to throw it up on GAN now as I'm much more confident of not having any notable omissions now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just now gave it a cursory scan, but you might want to hunt down a copy of the Chinese Steam Navy before you do that as that's pretty much the definitive source for Chinese ships of that era. The nice thing is that the author has compiled his data from a wide range of sources, including Chinese, and will discuss the contradictory ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got that booked out on Wednesday at the BL so I'll take a look at it then. Are there any books you don't have that you'd like me to take some scans of pages from? Miyagawa (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to the Library of Congress over here, so I'm pretty good for now. But I'll keep it in mind if I find anything that I need that don't have any copies over on this side of the pond. Let me know when you've nominated it and I'll return the favor and review it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you were spot on about that book. I've scanned the pages and I'm going to go through them now - but the biggest and most obvious surprise was that the photo I have in the infobox is of a completely different ship. The website someone grabbed it off of mistranslated the Chinese, so it should have been listed as the Yangwei or something, but the author of Chinese Steam Navy actually thinks it one of two completely different ships because of the gunports and the Chinese had simply mislabelled it. Quite a literal case of Chinese whispers I guess. Miyagawa (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.
In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here
Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
WP:Awaken the Dragon contest starts in 4 and a half hours time. I wish you the best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I suspect I'll need it going up against Cwmhiraeth, et al.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GA reviews
Thanks a million for your GA review of Rachel Barrett. A pretty interesting life lived. I can't believe you've taken on Women's suffrage in Wales, it's a meaty article. Please take your time. I will not be upset if this article does not get GA within the competition deadline, it is important to me that this article is treated correctly. So feel no pressure from my side to get this reviewed correctly. All the best. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I have an ulterior motive; I'm in the
GA Cup which will give me extra points for meaty articles. I'll probably do it in several sections because of its length though. I would appreciate it if you could go through it with a fine-tooth comb and link all the geographic places for me as that will save me a bit of work when I review it (presuming, of course, that you followed the same pattern as with the other article). Really, though, credit goes to you for tackling such a "big" topic; it's so much easier to write a comprehensive article on a small, specialized subject like the ships that I work on than it is to do something like this. Keep it up; we need more articles on notable women and women's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Howe (1885) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Howe (1885) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Cardiff (D58) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Cardiff (D58) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Core attack
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but you don't get two sets of points for the same articles. You can enter them either in the main entry or Core attack sections. Obviously you get more from doing it as part of the core attack one so I've left them there and removed the others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd thought that they were separate things. Thanks for straightening me out.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Anson (1886) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Anson (1886) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Anson (1886) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Collingwood (1882) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Amphion (1911) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Amphion (1911) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Active (1911) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Just in case you hadn't seen the notice, this starts tomorrow. The most prolific new article creators have the chance to earn a lot of points from this over the weekend!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Active (1911) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Active (1911) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Battle of Pegae
Hello, Sturmvogel 66! Thank you very much for the review of the article. It took me so long to respond because I have been very busy at work these days. I have corrected the article as per your recommendations. In a few hours I am going abroad and will not be able to respond to any further recommendations until 24 April 2016. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Active-class cruiser for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article Active-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Active-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"HMS Spey was a 10-gun Cherokee-class brig-sloop built for the Royal Navy during the 1810s. " I think it needs tweaking to 1820s rather than 1810s. Easily done, unless you meant that of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's the problem with quick copy-pastes. I need to go back and review these last few for similar mistakes after I finish the last ships of this class. But thanks for reminding me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 20 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Thunderer (1872) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Thunderer (1872) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Thunderer (1872) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Penelope (1867) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Inconstant (1868) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi Sturm, quick question. I have just had a large amount of GANs I submitted early in the round owing to the length it usually takes to get a review. Since then I note that I am in a good position to proceed to the next round and thus don't need the points. However as the reviews are mostly all coming now, if they are passed then I feel I would be obliged to enter them this round when I don't need to. I would like to ask, would it be possible in lieu of the tables, for any GAs that pass between now and the start of the next round be held back and be permitted to be submitted the next round please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, but no, you can't hold them back for next round. That's part of the risk you take with GANs in that you're never sure of when you're going to get a review, or even if you'll get a review. Experience taught me that I needed think carefully about when I'd submit a nomination, back when I was competing, as it did me no good to rack up excess points early in the Cup. So I'd advise you to start work on another batch of GANs, if you haven't already done so, and estimate how many points will be needed to get into the next round. And then strategize about how many to actually nominate, based on who else is in your pool.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Penelope (1867) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Penelope (1867) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Inconstant (1868) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Inconstant (1868) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Repulse (1892) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Repulse (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Repulse (1892) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Drake (1901) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Drake (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Drake (1901) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Contest prizes
I've been totting up the prizes for the contest and working out what I've given or promised. I couldn't remember if I promised £20 for most articles in Core Attack or not. You're on to get £10 for GAs and got a 500 bonus for doing 20 anyway. I think Miyagawa (if things remain the same) deserves £25 for third place, that leaves £20. You OK with me putting that final £20 into the Finale so there's £120 (roughly $175) to play for? I can't see anywhere on the Core Attack page I promised £20, on the main page it was just what I had intended putting into the different ones. Up to you. You are getting £10 and 500 bonus for most GAs and got 500 for the most core expansions which is already pretty generous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was indeed 20 pounds promised for winning Core Attack. And what about that copy of Royal Wales?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Wales book is a donation, not funded by the budget. Ah, you're right, I missed it on the core attack page, at the top "and £20 Amazon voucher at the end of the month for whoever improves the most core articles overall". OK, you've won that unless Cwm or somebody posts a few dozen articles at core attack on the last day ;-)! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Ajax (1880) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Ajax (1880) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late notice; this just got scheduled today. Working on it now. Brian and Hawkeye decided to put Battle of the Coral Sea off until the 75th anniversary. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; made one mild edit to the blurb. See if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precious again, your ship, + your GA sailing below is just stunning
says GA (who is close to one a week for a year, need to write one more and to have approved several more, see
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
While you're doing good work do you think you could vary it a little and do say a village and biography and then return to architecture? The idea really was that each entry is a different subject, but I can see that would be difficult, and you're doing good work so not complaining!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I can find the sources for a village, but I'll see if I can find a suitable biography to mix things up a little. But no promises as I'm not sure that I can find someone born in the needed places or can afford the time to find someone who lacks an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Blanche (1909) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Bellona (1909) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Thisbe (1824) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Thisbe (1824) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Blonde (1910) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Blonde (1910) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Blanche (1909) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Blanche (1909) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article HMS Bellona (1909) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Bellona (1909) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
The article HMS Boadicea (1908) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Boadicea (1908) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TheStrikeΣagle 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
.png)
Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by 
Piotrus (submissions), 
Hawkeye7 (submissions
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
Figureskatingfan (submissions), 
ThaddeusB (submissions), 
Dana boomer (submissions), 
Status (submissions), 
Ed! (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), 
Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.
.jpg)
.png)
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
