User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 12

Articles
Just curious, when do you start writing articles again? I have been waiting long time to see them coming. Or, you want to concentrate on sorting, assessment and this kind of stuff for some more time? - DSachan (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: USNS Private Leonard C. Brostrom (T-AK-255)
Hi Bellhalla, I've been working on improving the article for this ships class, the Type C4 class ship. However, I've found that there are class articles for the ships that were used as hospital ships (Haven class hospital ship) and as troop transports (General G. O. Squier class transport ship). Should these be seperate articles or do you think that they should be merged? I also redirected the article for the SS Marine Star as it's under one of the previous names for the ship, the SS Aquarama. The article article for the Aquarama needs work but there is enough information available to expand it. I found a start class article for the SS Marine Marlin and corrected the article name as well. On a personal note, the Aquarama was berthed for many years a few miles from my house prior to its scrapping. Shinerunner (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Brummer
Hey, maybe you find German cruisers to be a bummer, but some of us find them interesting! :D Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of "Ships transferred to" categories
I created many -- not all -- of those categories. I am not married to the idea of what I called each one, and there is value in standardization. But too much insistence on exact terminonology can lead to its own problems, and this must be considered as the categories are renamed. Some examples are:

One of the ships transferred to the Japanese Navy was actually trhe destroyer USS Stewart, captured (okay, not really "transferred") at Java in 1942 and placed in service with the Imperial Japanese Navy. I picked "Japanese Navy" because it conveys the idea of the naval forces of Japan colloquially without requiring a distinction between the Imperial Japanese Navy and the JMSDF. To be accurate, you would have to create a category of "transferred to Japan" and then have two categories within it, one for the IJN and one for the JMSDF. Actually, that's okay, but it's more complicated and requires more clicking.

"Marina Militaire" is Italian for "Navy", so saying "transferred to the Marina Militaire" just means "transferred to the Navy", requiring greater understanding of Italian and of the Italian Navy than can be expected of worldwide English-speaking users of Wikipedia. I think that "Marina Militaire" best translates to "Italian Navy," and this is the English-language Wikipedia, after all.

Ditto the Colombian National Armada. "Armada" in Spanish means "Navy" in English in this case, and does not really translate to the English usage of "armada", as in "Spanish Armada." In the English Wikipedia, the nest translation is "Colombian National Navy," not "Colombian National Armada" -- which cherry-picks the English translation of "Colombian National" but not of "Navy" (Armada). Heck, that applies to the article on the Colombian Navy itself, I suppose.

The modern trend toward expressing everything in something as close to the home country's description or terminology is valuable and laudable, but much of it goes to far when it fails to properly translate foreign terms into the plain English in actually translates to.

Other entries you propose to change make sense. Any English speaker can understand Royal Thai Navy, Belgian Naval Component, and so forth.

So I think a review is necesary to ensure that full English translations are used ("Armada") and that the new terminology is obvious to an English speaker in terms of which country and which navy is being referred to (Marina Militaire).

My two cents' worth.

(By the way, I came up with the awkward "transferred to the Royal Navy (United Kingdom)" terminology because I 1) did not want to say British Navy, but 2) realized that non-experts would not know which navy was the "royal" one -- sort of the same problem as "Marina Militaire," but without the added problem of translation into English.) Mdnavman (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman


 * Thanks for the explanations. I'm not married to any of the names I suggested, but specifically chose the names that match each navy's article and/or main category. So using "Greek Navy" (even though that adequately describes it), when the entity's article is at Hellenic Navy and categorized in, just doesn't make sense to me. To look at the Italian example, though, Marina Militare was suggested to distinguish the post-1946 navy of Italy from the pre-1946 Regia Marina. And as far as the Japanese Navy category is concerned: I wouldn't expect any ship that was captured to be in any one of the "United States Navy ships transferred to…" categories, since transfer implies a measure of control on the part of the U.S. and/or U.S. Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your points, and I see that the categories have been renamed. Like I said above, "Colombian National Armada" is a sort of a half-English, half-Spanish (Spanglish?) creole meaning "Colombian National Navy," so using "Armada" (Spanish for "Navy") is unnecessary and a bit eclectic, given that other Spanish-speaking navies have not been changed into "armadas" as well in the categories. (No, I don't recommend such a change.) But, leaving Colombia aside as sort of an eclectic one-off, I only really have a problem with two of the name changes:


 * 1) "Hellenic Navy" will meet the needs only of a Wikipedia user informed enough to know that Greece's navy is called the Hellenic Navy; it was far more accessible to the average user to say "Greek Navy." Perhaps a compromise would be "Hellenic Navy (Greece)" -- much as we have "Royal Navy (United Kingdom)"?


 * 2) The "Marina Militaire" change has wiped out all English-language-accessible reference to Italy and its navy, and requires people to understand a foreign-language term not in common use in English. I really think we need to keep that category accessible to the inexpert and to the Italian-language-challenged. I'm not sure the U.S. Navy ever transferred any ships to the Regia Marina, and therefore am not sure the Regia Marina/Marina Militaire distinction matters in this category, but if that matters to somebody, how about a compromise like "Marina Militaire (Italy) so that both English-speakers and the navally uninformed have a fighting chance?


 * I just don't think that the Hellenic and Marina Militaire changes, although clearly of greater terminological purity, have helped people navigate their way around the Wiki, and I suspect the changes have indeed made it harder without any offsetting gain for the general public. Mdnavman (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman


 * I understand what you are saying and am not unsympathetic to it. I outlined the reasons why I nominated the categories at the CFD discussion (in which you were certainly welcome to participate) and above in reply to your original comment. One problem I see with your suggested parenthetical names is that on Wikipedia, parentheticals are usually disambiguators between items with the same or very similar names. Since there is only one Marina Mailitare (that I'm aware of, at least), many at WP would see that the addition of "(Italy)" to that as redundant, or unnecessary disambiguation.


 * As far as the names, however, if you feel that Greek Navy and Italian Navy are more common English names, make a move proposal (see Requested moves for details). If the articles are moved, I'll be happy to support moving all of the necessary categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Mercy (AH-4)
In infobox there is information that this ship can have 221 patients - but in text Both ships were outfitted with state-of-the-art operating rooms and X-ray labs and could accommodate 500 patients each. So can you precise from when are information in infobox ?

Also - do you know why that ship was decommisioned ? Too old or US Navy was have too many hospital ships ?

PMG (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this message finds you well, and I hope you plan to run for re-election, but if you have decided against another term, please consider notating that choice on the election page in the table here. -MBK004 05:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfied old template
Hi Bellhalla, I encountered this template tagged for speedy deletion, and since it was under your name and only being used within the userspace (here), I've moved it to User:Bellhalla/N/A. It looks like it's transcluded several times on the Oiler page, so I won't delete the "Template:" redirect yet. Jamie S93  19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've switched all of the transclusions to the now-userspace template, and deleted the template-space redirect. Just bringing it to your attention, although nothing needs to be done about it anymore. ;) Best, Jamie S93  19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite Miramar
Please note that I added a line of code to Template:Cite Miramar. The purpose of that line is to find all usages of the accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters, which are deprecated. The goal is to eliminate their occurance, as has been done for Cite web and other templates already. Then the code will be changed to stop supporting these parameters at all. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the template and the heads up! — Bellhalla (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Helping out in the academy
Hi Belhalla, could you help us out in the academy and write a section about photography. How do you take pictures (mostly in museums) and how you enhace them to be good presentations in wikipedia. I'll help you and write about documenting such a photosession. Thanks a lot. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't "the bit" be handy?
I know you say on your user page that you don't want the drama of being an administrator, but wouldn't it be handy to edit protected pages? ;) It is clear to me from your edit history that you are as trustworthy an editor as we have, and that should be enough for adminship. You certainly do not have to spend all your time on ANI, or closing XfD discussions, or blocking vandals, etc.  I have been an admin for a couple of years, and I certainly don't do any of that!  But I do a lot of work with protected templates, fixing page moves, etc. and it is awfully handy to have all the tools at your disposal.  Think about it and let me know, and I would be happy to nominate you.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Navy
Hi! I realized that you've recently removed the ship prefixes in the article Turkish Navy. May I ask why the USN prefixes still remain in the article United States Navy ships? Thanks if you have time to reply. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when the article is about the Turkish Navy and discussing Turkish ships, I feel that it's a bit redundant to to keep repeating the TCG prefix, especially in prose (as opposed to a list form). WikiProject Ships has a style guideline that addresses this issue: WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. As far as the United States Navy ships article, most of the links are presented in list form, where the de facto consensus seems to include ship prefixes. (See, for example, List of ships of the Polish Navy.)
 * As an aside, I'm planning on revisiting the Turkish Navy article (when I finish a couple of other projects) and making links to articles for a lot of those ships. It seemed to me that a majority of the links were to the namesakes of the ships and not the ships themselves. For example, the WWII-era submarine can be reached via TCG Oruç Reis, but the link is to Oruç Reis, the article on the 16th-century Turkish privateer. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed information. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hiya Bellhalla. Nice work with the categories; they might actually be organized and uniform when you are done! :-) I come here with a request, though; could you copyedit BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia as part of its A-class review and eventual FAC? Thanks a lot, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A slightly belated thank you for the copyediting. I'm still working on getting to your hidden comments (computer troubles, RL issues and RfAs suck up way too much time, IMO). — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  02:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One quick question: what is up with the missing page number ref you added? Should I attempt to find a different ref for it? — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just 'borrowed' that ref from the U-boat's article. Since that particular book is in Spanish, I wasn't sure if it would be in Google books (or if there, if I would be able to find any specific passage). If you eliminate the 'under strange circumstances' part, you can use Uboat.net (link) as a source for the surrender. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

AshLin (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

copyedit request
I know you're likely to be extremely busy; but if you have time, would you willing to copyedit Japanese battleship Yamato? It's in need of a few prose tweaks before an eventual FAC. Cam (Chat) 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of cruisers of the Indian and Pakistan Navy
Hello! A month and a half ago you created the redirects: but those sections have still not been created. Are they still expected to be, or are these redirects permanently dead and broken? -- ToET 08:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * &rarr; List of cruisers
 * &rarr; List of cruisers
 * I've added the two sections. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank-you muchly! -- ToET 12:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library
Could you contribute to the discussion at Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library, as I believe the OCLC parameter was introduced to the Template:infobox Book. I believe the rationale was to provide an additional catalogue reference, but it is unclear why this particular catalogue system was chosem, or who made the choice. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...For fixing the tense in Tanager Expedition. I was experimenting and forgot to self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Battlecruiser categories
I'd drop the Stalingrad-class ships from the Soviet BCs of WWII category. Preliminary design work may have started during the war, but no metal was cut until well after the end of the war. And do we really need separate categories when each only has, or should have, one article in each? Personally, I'd drop them as I think the general category is quite enough. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of "World War II [ship types] of [country]" typically includes those designed, built, or operated by that country during WWII, which was the reason for its inclusion. If you believe it's better not to have the Stalingrad-class in the WWII category, I'll defer to your opinion. I also note (now) that, similarly, they are not included in Template:WWIISovietShips.
 * As far as the categories, I'm assuming your referring to Category:World War II battlecruisers of the Soviet Union and Category:Cold War battlecruisers of the Soviet Union? The former is a member of Category:World War II battlecruisers, which makes it useful for comparing with other navies operating battlecruisers during WWII. The latter category is beneficial if a reader navigates to Category:Battlecruisers by era to see that battlecruisers were in service beyond WWII. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The bulk of, if not all of, the actual detailed design work occurred after the war, so, yeah, I don't think that they should be counted as WWII ships. I didn't check out the full hierarchy of the categories, but I have no problem with them now that you've explained your schema. So when are you going to start up again with the destroyer and submarine articles? We've missed them! --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Hi. According to WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN, and  should use hyphens, not dashes, because "Russo-" and "Sino-" are prefixes rather than self-standing words. They can only be used when attached to another word, so hyphens are used. I was going to nominate them for speedy renaming but thought you could just change if you'd rather them since you were the creator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First Sino–Japanese War should use a hyphen as well. Please revert the page move. --Kusunose 08:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh*. I'll learn the difference… someday. :) Thanks for the heads up! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and someone already beat me to moving First Sino-Japanese War, so it's all good, I think. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took care of doing that for you. Coincidentally, someone entirely different had also moved Second Sino-Japanese War to Second Sino–Japanese War, so at least you can have the reassurance that you're not alone in your confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Nihonjoe‎. That page was move to the title with an em-dash to be consistent with First Sino–Japanese War. --Kusunose 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Classic cascade effect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fix to Category:Bayan class cruisers
Regarding the fix you had to make to, sorry ... that was my mistake. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems. Even I—yes, that's right, I—make mistakes. ;) (See the section above this one.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grassy Bay


The article Grassy Bay has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No claim of notability, appears to be a geographical feature rather than a place of habitation. No references provided.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Seconded. You've been doing a great job on categories, a much neglected area of the project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the kind words. It's been an area that's bugged me for some time. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this template neeeded?
Empire ships/sandbox which you created. Now superseded by the various templates for the Empire ships by first letter of suffix. Can we delete this now or do you see a use for it? Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean just the Template:Empire ships/sandbox itself, or do you mean Template:Empire ships and the sandbox template? If you mean both, I have no problem with deletion since, as you say, has been superseded by the individual letter templates. If you just mean the sandbox, I'd say leave it; sandboxes can help other editors see how something was derived and even ideas that didn't work. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another use has been found for the Empire ships template - see the Empire ships article. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Waban (ID-2355)
I've created a redirect for this from its use on the Design 1015 ships template. A Yahoo search fails to find any sources for this one. Was SS Waban in service with the US Navy at any point? Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I created Template:Design 1015 ships (as well as others), I cross-referenced various pages at http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com with the SP/ID Civilian Vessels Index page at Navsource. It looks like there was a Waban that was assigned that ID number of 2355, but that vessel was a tug, and it never served in the United States Navy. The other Waban—your SS Norhauk—is unrelated to the tug and never served in the U.S. Navy, either. I've pointed the link in the 1015 navbox to the correct page now. Looks like I just missed the, well… boat, on this one… :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, for a pennance you can convert the USS Waban (ID-2355) from a redirect to an article. :-p Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me
Just out of curiosity, would you happen to have/know anything on which convoys BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia and BRAZILIAN CRUISER Rio Grande do Sul escorted during the Second World War? I'm hoping to include a mention of at least one for each article (..when I write the latter, that is), integrating it like I did in the USS Nevada (BB-36) article: "One of the convoys that Nevada protected was troop convoy UT-2. UT-2 consisted of 20 transports and troopships and was escorted by nine destroyers, four fast minesweepers, a destroyer escort and Nevada all under the command of Rear Admiral Carleton F. Bryant, who also picked Nevada to be his flagship. After departing New York on 5 September, they set course for the North Channel; no contacts were made with any enemy, and the ships made it to their destination in ten days. The same ships then journeyed back to the United States in late September as Convoy TU-2 (Morison, Samuel Eliot (1956). Volume X, The Atlantic Battle Won. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 134.)." — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This google books link mentions both ships and gives an overview of the Brazilian WWII effort, which might give some additional background info. You might also try Convoy Web's search page, http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/hague/search3.php (I've apparently used my lifetime number of searches), which lists convoy escorts. Also, I found a link about RGdS: http://sixtant.net/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=818&Itemid=2; not sure how reliable, but you might be able to cross-ref with other sources. Given that both ships' names are also Brazilian cities, a web search, unfortunately, brings back a lot of chaff. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've used the first link before, while the second does not give anything (by the way, have you tried clearing your cache? You may be able to search again after doing that). Loving the third link, hopefully that will help in corroborating (it certainly doesn't look reliable :-) You and Mjroots are right about the web searches; eek. Thank you both! — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)