User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 11

GA reviews for O'Brien class destroyers
Hello Bellhalla, how are you? Just to let you know, I will make all GA reviews for O'Brien class on this Saturday (30 May). Sorry for this delay. Maybe by that time, you will also manage to write the remaining destroyer and the main class article. - DSachan (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. I should have the other pair finished by then, too. By the way, there's no reason to apologize. We all can be busy from time to time :) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

re: great free image for United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)
Hi Belhalla, in regards to your painting by Burnell Poole (which I've thought about adding to the article before) I was wondering if you might have some insight into another painting of the Division by an artist named A.B. Cull, who died in 1931. The painting and info can be found here. On the surface it seems like this should be PD because he's been dead for more than 70 years, but the website says that the painting is copyrighted by Publication Right. Do you have any idea if this is for real or if they're just trying to scare people off?

Impressive work on the O'Brien class destroyers btw. Any plans to work on other destroyer classes? Jrt989 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (TPS'ing) I think that it would be; the Commons' says that the position of the Wikimedia Foundation on older art is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." Also, hopefully he will work on some of the large cruiser classes. :D —  Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed is correct: For any artist that died before 1939, all of their works should be PD for the purposes of Wikimedia (Commons, Wikipedias, etc.). Also, thanks for the kind words. I'm starting up on the Aylwin-class destroyers next. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that you aren't planning on going up the rather VERY long list of U.S. destroyers. :) That'd be a 20–year job... also, considering that I forgot to say it before, I also think that the O'Brien articles are quite good. Please keep writing, as I love to read your articles :))) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. I think I'm just going to do Good Topics for all five of the "thousand tonner" classes (and then a topic of topics of the thousand tonners, maybe?). I will offer you, as I did with Jrt, many thanks for the kind words. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And, what next after that? I am curious to know your plan. German submarines again or something else, maybe Nimitz class aircraft carrier topic with 10 ships in the class? Your stuff is impressive and amazing, not that you haven't heard this thing thousand of times before already. - DSachan (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating the article history
Hi, I alread asked Roger Davis without a response so far so I try again. Who updates the talk page history of the following articles: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service, List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine? They all passed A-class review but the histories have not yet been updated? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it should have been the closing MILHIST coordinator (who might have thought no action was needed since they were already at FL status), but, regardless, I've learned how to do it and updated the pages of each. While individual coordinators are usually happy to respond to queries like yours on their own talk pages, sometimes we get busy in RL and don't always see them in a timely manner. Please feel free to post any question like this to the Coordinators talk page, here, or even to the project's main talk page if you need a faster response. Thanks for bringing it to attention. I learned something out of the deal today, so that makes it a good day! :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

LST-542 class tank landing ship template
The "LST-542 class tank landing ship" template seems to have gone missing overnight, replaced with Wikiproject tags rating the template but with no navbox left. Can you restore the template? (A lot of work went into creating it, and a do-over would be depressing.) I'd restore it, but I'm not good enough at Wikipedia to do that correctly. Thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)mdnavman


 * Not sure I know what's going on. I know that (used extensively in the template) and other closely related templates were ever-so-briefly nominated for deletion. Maybe that had something to do with something funny going on? I looked at the template and the edit history suggests that nothing has been edited on it since 26 May. Is there a particular page where it is not working? Or maybe the talk page was transcluded, perhaps (like )? (That doesn't work.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
As one of the few people in the intersection between the copyeditors' camp and the military history people, would you mind having a look at this one? Its deficiencies lie in the brilliant prose area, I think, and I would appreciate the outside help. No problems if you can't, I gather you're a busy person (he looks at the barnstar awarded above), yes, very busy. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

MoS discussion
Hi there, I open a discussion on the use of small caps in acronyms here. Please comment if you are so inclined, especially if I misrepresented your position in any way. My interest here isn't being "right"; I'm just curious what other people have to say about it and if the MoS should address it. Thanks for all your hard work. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Hi there! You've probably never seen my edits on Wikipedia, but that's exactly why I sought you out. I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on my FAC for Yukon Quest, and if you've got a bit of extra time, I'd appreciate any comments, questions, or anything else you'd care to add to the review going on right now. I'm trying to get editors unfamiliar with mushing so I can ensure the article is clear to the widest possible audience. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
I am working on an article (USS South Dakota (BB-57)) that quotes the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships verbatim in places, and almost word-for-word in others. Is this acceptable for a GA, an A, or an FA article? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * TPS'ing here For GA/A it should be ok, but I'm not so sure about FAC... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed, for catching this; I missed it the other night. I agree with Ed on the GA portion, assuming the DANFS text has been cleaned up to remove the sometimes jingoistic, pro-American bias (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions offers some good advice). My personal preference for A-Class articles I write is to rework the DANFS material using my own words. For FAC, large blocks of DANFS text are frowned upon, and would probably not meet the prose requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed and Bellhalla. This should be fun, considering how much DANFS text the article quotes verbatim. mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

uboat.net
Hi Bellhalla, in the FAC for Military history of Australia during World War II another editor has asked whether uboat.net is a reliable source. I note that you've used it in SM U-66 and I'm sure that I've seen it used in other FAs. Would you be able to provide any comments about the site's reliability (or otherwise!) at Featured article candidates/Military history of Australia during World War II/archive1? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just checking this before bedtime, so will comment tomorrow. In the meantime, the list I used to help make the case for the reliability of the website is at User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BatDiv9
Hey Bellhalla. I've reviewed United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) for GA here; as the reviewer in the first GAN, would you be able to stop by and comment? Thank you! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LT or tonnes?
Would you happen to know if the displacements of naval vessels in the Miramar Ship Index are in long tons or tonnes? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it could be either, depending on the navy and/or era. USN ships, for example, typically use long tons. The best thing, if you can't tell, is to list it as "tons" and note the ambiguity. Which ship in particular were you wondering about? — Bellhalla (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ARA Rivadavia... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Colton (an RS, by the way) lists 27,566, which I'm interpreting to be in LT, matching Miramar. Given that Conway's… 1906–1921 lists "27,940t normal, 30,600t full" (p. 401) for Rivadavia and the (typically?) metric ton/tonne figure there 27940 t is pretty close to 27566 LT. I'm going to say LT for Rivadavia. Since it seems the Conway's… numbers are in metric tons/tonnes, then the 30,600 full displacement, or "DWT" on Miramar, would also be in metric tons/tonnes, in which case I'd list it as:
 * 27566 LT, standard
 * 30100 LT, full
 * Hope this helps. — — Bellhalla (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot; that does help! I should have thought of checking Conway's myself haha... :) Cheers! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

USS Parker (DD-48)
Hi, just in case you missed it, this article has been under review for the last few days, you have seven days from now to make the few requested improvements.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject A-Class medal with Swords

 * *Bells and Whistles* way to go, dude. Thanks for all of the excellent articles you have written. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template conversion
Was there a discussion held about changes like this somewhere? Because I'm really not persuaded that the new style template is an improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No discussion I'm aware of. About half of the military ship navbox templates I've come across were using the default navbox style (as in the "before" of your link) and about half using the WP:MILHIST style (in the current version of the template you linked). One advantage of the latter style is that ship infobox bars—which already use the MILHIST styles—match the title bar in the -style navboxes.
 * Given that other MILHIST articles use a variety of navigational boxes based on the same style specifications, it gives military ship articles a more consistent style within the spectrum of MILHIST articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to an example of the inconsistency you mention? I can't say that I've ever noticed it, which suggests to me the effect is probably not all that jarring. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This table below shows the differences.
 * {| class=wikitable

! rowspan=2 | ! rowspan=2 | Shipbox color ! colspan=2 | Navbox colors ! title bar ! "below" bar ! All MILHIST infoboxes ! Mix of ship infobox/Standard navbox
 * rowspan=2 style="background: #B0C4DE" |
 * style="background: #B0C4DE" |
 * style="background: #DCDCDC" |
 * style="background: #CCCCFF" |
 * style="background: #DDDDFF" |
 * }
 * It's not a huge difference, but from a design perspective, it gives the article more consistency. Using the default navbox colors, you end up with three different shades of blue. Is there a particular aspect of the MILHIST design that bothers you? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not especially in love with the colours, as I find them dull and I felt the purple was more noticeable. But now that you mention it, I dislike the way the MILHIST template has a blue band at the top and a grey one at the bottom. That looks untidy to me, since it would seem to detract from the integrity of the template as a unitary structure. I don't know if it would actually look better with the bottom band the same colour as the top one, but in theory it should do (although as I'm sure you are aware, such things can usually only be determined by trial and error). Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

USS Porter (DD-59)
Hello

Porter had two Curtis steam turbines that drove her two screw propellers, and an additional steam turbine geared to one of the propeller shafts for cruising purposes.

So that destroyer has two turbines (and one was used to cruising) or he has three turbines (and one was used to cruising) ? I am asking because in infobox there is information that this ship has only two turbines. PMG (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes,the ship had three turbines. I've amended the infobox to display the correct information. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * USS Conyngham (DD-58) the same class, the same problem. He also has third turbine ? And rest of that class ? PMG (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hop hop? PMG (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Empire ships
Why the removal from Category:Ministry of War Transport ships? Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to streamline the categories a bit. I set up as a subcat of, which I set up as a subcat of , so in effect, the list articles are just moved down in the hierarchy. If you think  should be directly in , it's easy enough to add the whole category. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah right. Presumably all the individual ships' articles will be added to the cat then? Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the plan… :) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

USS Duplin (AKA-87)
You've been doing some good edits to this ship. The one on DANFS doesn't look so good, though. Look at the References section. "The entry can be found here" seems to be messed up. I don't know what it's supposed to look like, but if this is it, IMHO it needs some improvement. Lou Sander (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. There was an extra space, which ordinarily doesn't bother templates, but given that this one generates a link, it screwed it all up. But, I've now fixed it. Thanks for the kind words and the heads up on my goof up. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Benham (DD-49)
Hi. Just to let you know I have done the GA review on USS Benham (DD-49). Pending a few minor improvements, the article is ready to pass GA. - Ed! (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First, do no harm ;-)
USS Oglethorpe (AKA-100) has the same DANFS error that messed up the References section of USS Duplin. I think there are more of them. Maybe lots of them. IMHO you should revisit all the ships you've recently worked on and look for this bug. I'd do it myself, but I'm hugely busy with non-Wiki matters. Lou Sander (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User page comments
Great page, reporting on a lot of good work! Keep it up. Suggestion: Your lists of featured articles, etc. talk about articles you've "written." Since an article is "written" by many people, there's probably a better word to use. I use "started" if I started it, or "made substantial contributions to" if I didn't, or "started and substantially maintain," etc. Just my two cents' worth. Lou Sander (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be true for most articles, but the vast majority of the articles that I have listed were, indeed, written by me. I certainly don't mean to minimize the contributions of other editors, nor am I intending to imply ownership over any of the articles. But in my view, if there's redlink before, and there's an article afterwards, I say it's reasonable to say that I have written it. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit assistance requested
Hello Bellhalla! It has been suggested at peer review that Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 could use a going-through by a native-language editor for details of style. If you are interested, your help would be welcome! Regards, Constantine  ✍  07:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Destroyer pages...
Here's the link: it was in Military history, not Ships... sorry about that... ... And, you're right, I got carried away and didn't stop to think whether I was helping or hurting the article, but I didn't realize (14:56) was the standard 24-hour time format, since I've seen it both with and without a colon... as for the other errors, my apologies... I'll correct them immediately... Magus732 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the thing: you were right, I agreed with you, and you're still harping at me about it... I have been using kn as an abbreviation for nautical-miles-per-hour since I first edited here, and you are the first person ever who has shown any concern about me using it... now, either no one else has noticed, or it isn't a problem; I can't say... but what makes it worse is that you approach the subject as if you are the only one who can edit these articles... look, I appreciate that you pointed out my MoS errors to me, but quite frankly, I don't answer to you... I agree that I have made mistakes... however, that is no excuse for the possesive tone you and others use in conjuction with ship articles... I've been getting that a lot around here, and I'm really getting sick of it... I realize that you're just trying to make the page better, but you must realize, so am I, and it is difficult to do so if someone yells at me from over my shoulder every five minutes... I am human; I will make mistakes... I realize that I'm not perfect... but biting my head off will not help make me a better editor, or, perhaps more importantly, prevent future screw-ups... Magus732 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Heinkel He 111
Hi,

You may remember me from the Junkers Ju 87 article which passed GA some months back. I have nominated the He 111 page for GA but a month later it still has not been actioned by anyone. Could you have a look? Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Lake Champlain (CG-57)
Hi, Belhalla! I happened to see you refining cats on this boat. Any interest in developing that article? My best friend's son is on that boat, so I've been watching the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILCON
I can see you are doing the assessing run now, just a note that List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients is FL, Gimmebot hasn't gone through yet. Thanks and keep up the good work, Regards, Woody (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)