User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 13

USN Jack versus Ensign
Hi Bellhalla, should all of the pages that use File:US Naval Jack.svg be updated to use the ensign (i.e. USN flag) instead? Again, I'm only vaguely familiar with the WP:SHIPS consensus, but I believe it is for ensigns always instead of jacks. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I understand the consensus, the national ensign of whatever country is to be used, not the naval jack. For the U.S. naval ships, the final flag flown while the ship was in commission—i.e flag of the decommissioning year (or year sunk, or year otherwise out of service)—is the one that should be used. So, a 1942 WWII ship that remained in commission through 1962 would properly have the 50-star flag (the one flown in 1962), rather than the 48-star flag (which was flown in 1942). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ship templates
What do you think of the idea of creating a template to use for all the U-boats? GS is unused at the moment and could be employed in a similar way to the HMS, USS, RMS etc templates. Thus GS U-39 (1938) would produce U-39. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea. It should be all set up and working now:
 * → GS U-39 (1938)
 * Thanks for the idea! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
Hi Bellhalla, I have created User:Bellhalla/RfA nomination Requests for adminship/Bellhalla. Please let me know if you would like me to change any of my comments, and please fill in the acceptance section and the three questions. You might want to read Guide to requests for adminship, and the only advice I'd give is not to say things that you think people want to hear. Just be straightforward about what admin tools you need to continue editing in your primary areas of interest. Once we're ready, I'll move it from your user space to the appropriate location and get the ball rolling. Good luck! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, you need to indicate that you have accepted the nomination, there is a line where you do that. After that we can move the nom and put it live. Good luck! -MBK004 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I'll be out of pocket most of this weekend for family obligations, so it would probably be best if it didn't go live until Monday. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've 'officially' accepted the nomination now. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have moved the page to RfA and it is now "live"! Best of luck, and the only advice I'd offer at this point is if you disagree with any of the Oppose !votes, don't reply to each and every one to try to convince them otherwise.  Just let it play out, but answer any questions obviously directed towards you, and you'll do fine.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sig
Do you want a custom signature? I would be happy to make you one.  Btilm 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I'm kind of a simple guy. I'll stick to plain text in my signature. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Need your help
Since you've dealt with U-boats before, could you please have a look at the contribs of this newbie since he has made quite a mess: Special:Contributions/AchimKoerver, and he probably will have ownership issues once you see the hidden notes, especially with this: , Have fun, -MBK004 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations my friend! :-D — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Naval categories
...because they were ridiculous! There were 13 categories to categorize 3 articles. It was a total overkill. Maybe for large navies it makes sense, but Lithuania - definitely not. Renata (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nominated for CfD. Renata (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion...
Y'know, something's been bothering me about what you said a few months ago, and I only noticed it fully after I went back through my talk page a few times... if "kn" is not a universally used or accepted form of abbreiviation for nautical-miles-per-hour, why is it used in "convert" templates here on Wikipedia? For example, if you want the conversion to work correctly, you would write it " 36 mph " instead of " 36 mph ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus732 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be hard to make the leap from the fact that because one template on Wikipedia has chosen one prefix over another that that demonstrates "universal acceptance". But to answer your question, the powers that be at Template:Convert opted to make the more ambiguous "kt" the template's abbreviation for kilotonnes and "kn" to be the abbreviation for knots. As for kn not being universally accepted, see this extended discussion from the MOS:NUM archives on the use of kn vs. kt in various sources.
 * As to your last point, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. When I enter what you typed I get the same output from both:
 * → 36 mph
 * → 36 mph
 * — Bellhalla (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh... it's just, I find it weird that no one thought to check the conversion templates when they discused the issue... if they both come out the same, I guess it really doesn't matter which one you type in... my point was that, because you insisted I change them to "knot", and the template worked fine with "kn", that it must be okay to use it... that was my point... I see what you're saying, though... Magus732 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two points I was trying to make. Typing out the token "knot" within template convert makes it easier for future editors by making the conversion simultaneously more explicit and less ambiguous. My main point, though, was to suggest against using "abbr=on" within for conversions of knots. Since the template-chosen abbreviation is not universally known and/or accepted, it is better (and certainly takes not-at-all much more space) to not abbreviate the nautical-mile-per-hour unit. So typing this:
 * gives this:
 * which avoids a less-than-universal abbreviation. (And just because Template:convert can do something, that doesn't make automatically make it a good idea or, for that matter, even right. I can type   and it will spit out the completely meaningless  .) — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * which avoids a less-than-universal abbreviation. (And just because Template:convert can do something, that doesn't make automatically make it a good idea or, for that matter, even right. I can type   and it will spit out the completely meaningless  .) — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * which avoids a less-than-universal abbreviation. (And just because Template:convert can do something, that doesn't make automatically make it a good idea or, for that matter, even right. I can type   and it will spit out the completely meaningless  .) — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA…
…has demonstrated that there exists community consensus that you be allowed to use the wikipedia maintenance tools—congratulations! If you have not already, please take a look at Advice for new administrators, Administrators' reading list, and Administrators' how-to guide, and, if I may, Category:Administrative backlog is thataway. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rofl, sorry Avi. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
To Wikipedia's newest admin... well done! Jusda fax  17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ^How did you get here before me, Jusdafax...
 * Anyway, congratulations dude. You just beat me percent-wise; I had 117/1/2 against your 117/0/2. Jerk. :-) Enjoy the new buttons, and don't venture to the dark side. All the best, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was 117/0/1, Ed. Get it right… ;) You're just jealous that you had infinitely more opposes than I did… In all seriousness, though, thanks a lot, Ed. I appreciate your strong support and your kind words, which are a great comfort. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was close enough. :P I could be jealous, but try to prove that! Heh.
 * Dude, if anyone deserves a strong support from me, it's you. Take a step back and look at your contributions here; you have recategorized almost every ship so that the cats are actually consistent and understandable. You've also worked on a whole host U-boats and merchant ships; sure, they are rather out of the mainstream, but in many cases you have created virtually the only online source on these. Pat yourself on the back and get back to work :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! I am very pleased at the way the RfA played out, with virtually unanimous support.  (Too bad a 7th grader tried to make a joke out of it.)  I had anticipated some opposition from editors who wanted to see demonstration of understanding of deletion policy, block policy, etc. by having seen you previously participate on various noticeboards, so that's why I wrote the nomination the way I did.  I was delighted to see that nobody really went down that track.  You should be proud of many of the comments on the RfA page, as strong acknowledgment from your peers that you do fabulous work for this project.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I felt your nomination statement made a very compelling case, and, it seems, that many others agreed, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in here. I can't believe I got the tools before you did though! Well done. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniform issue T-shirt. :) Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wanted to add my congrats as well! Shine runner  (talk)   11:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Congress FAC request
Hello - I know you're a very busy person but I would be most grateful if you could run through a copy edit for USS Congress (1799) which is currently a FAC. --Brad (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty please with sugar on top? :) --Brad (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. It was in my stack of things to do and got pushed down. I'll take a look tomorrow morning, if that works. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if you saw this post to begin with so I thought I would ask. I don't see any emergency here. 9 days and three comments so far. --Brad (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Source query
Can I use this source in an article? It's got a lot more detail than I can otherwise find. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know a lot about Ted Finch, but I've seen his name pop up enough in merchant ship discussions here and there to consider what he writes as more reliable than most information on the Internet (which isn't really saying a whole lot, given typical Internet accuracy). For this type of subject, I can't see a typical mailing-list post as being considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes, but the end of the post, however, is the bright spot. Finch lists his source as "Merchant Fleets, vol.37 by Duncan Haws", which appears to me to be this book. If I were going to work on an article, I would feel comfortable with citing the information Finch posted to Haws, but would not pursue GA or higher assessments until I had personally examined a copy of Haws' work. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the source used is given, I thought the it might be possible to use it. I'll make it clear that the source is quoted second hand, which should satisfy most. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NOAA and USC&GS flags
Hi Bellhalla, your opinion would be helpful at Template talk:Country data United States. Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bellhalla. Out of curiosity, I Googled "NOAA flag" to see if I could find any photos showing a NOAA ship flying the NOAA flag. You are right; it's hard to find anything clear. In many photos it does appear to be absent; in others there are limp flags that cannot be distinguished. Almlost all photos are from too far away or at bad angles and not very helpful. This photo of NOAAS Albatross IV from the NOAA Photo Library shows a flag flying from the forwardmost mast which, per regulation, would be the NOAA flag and seems to be the right color, but it is not close enough to be clearly distinguishable.  The only clear photo I have found so far of the NOAA flag on a ship's mast popped up from Flickr of all places, and can be seen here NOAA flag on Flickr; it apparently was taken aboard NOAAS Thomas Jefferson (S 222) this year. Oh, well, this whole discussion intrigues me now, so I'll keep looking and will let you know if I find anything more conclusive. Mdnavman (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
 * Thanks for the info. Have you tried contacting NOAA themselves? They might be able to tell us what the story is. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, and I might just do that in the next few days. I can see one of their buildings from my office window, so they should be easy to reach. By the way, another analogy that came to my mind is that perhaps the USC&GS flag was and NOAA flag is analogous to the "house" flag some merchant ships fly in addition to a national ensign; a British passenger liner might fly the Red Ensign as its national ensign and the Cunard Line flag as its house flag, with the ensign signifying national affiliation and status (merchant fleet) and the latter being a unique identifier of ownership. My bet right now is that on a NOAA ship the national ensign (i.e., U.S. flag) shows that she is a commissioned U.S. government ship just as Navy ships are, and the NOAA flag is like a U.S. government version of a commercial "house" flag, showing that she is a NOAA unit (rather than a Navy unit). The Coast Guard, in contrast, has its own ensign, and that ensign serves the purpose of distingushing Coast Guard ships as such and as being in commission; lacking a unique ensign, NOAA ships fly the same ensign as the Navy and then use also fly the NOAA service flag to distinguish themselves. I do wonder if the civilian part of NOAA's quasi-military/quasi-civilian culture maybe is a little less conscientious about heraldry and does not bother to run the NOAA flag up the mast that often and that that also may explain its absence from photographs, althought that is a pretty intangible and weak theory.  Anyway, I'll let it lie there for now. If I find anything out from NOAA, I will pass it along.  Thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
 * No sooner did I write the above than I ran across NOAA's official flag regulations (at NAO 201-6 Official Flags of NOAA, effective 4/18/02). They make it pretty cleat that the national ensign (i.e., the U.S. flag) is the ensign and that the NOAA flag is a service flag, but also that the service flag is to be flown day and night on the ship while she is in commission. You can look through the whole document if you want to, but here are the key regulations in it about the NOAA service flag aboard commissioned NOAA ships:
 * .02 NOAA Service Flags.
 * a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The flag depicts a triangle (base down) in red, within a white circle on a blue field, with the NOAA emblem superimposed on the triangle. This flag is displayed or flown at all NOAA installations where proper arrangements exist, and aboard NOAA ships.
 * SECTION 4. PROCEDURES.
 * .01 Distinctive Marks. The distinctive marks of a NOAA ship in commission are the NOAA service flag and the commission pennant, or the personal flag of a NOAA official or of a DOC official. Not more than one distinctive mark other than the service flag shall be flown simultaneously. The distinctive marks shall be flown day and night, except on occasions of ceremony described elsewhere within Section 4. of this Order. The commission pennant or personal flag shall be flown from a short standard hoisted to the main truck and the service flag shall be flown from the fore truck on ships having two masts. On ships having one mast, the commission pennant or personal flag and service flag shall be flown at the same masthead with the personal flag or commission pennant uppermost.''
 * That looks pretty conclusive -- service flag and not ensign, but must be flown at all times on commissioned NOAA ships, a distinctive mark of NOAA ships, and the only distinctive that can (and must) be flown when another distinctive mark is flown -- and will cue us as to where to look on photographs for the flags. Regards, Mdnavman (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
 * That sounds pretty definitive. Great detective work on finding that! — Bellhalla (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, great work! So to conclude the thread, I presume we want to remove those two flags from the instances of Infobox Ship Career in which it is used (leaving only the US ensign), and don't proceed with adding variants to Template:Country data United States.  Correct?  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the way I see it. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's what the Wikiships people really want, then there is little I can say about it. The USC&GS and NOAA fleets seemed to be little covered in Wikipedia (or elsewhere on the Web, for that matter), and I was hoping to get coverage of the maritime heritage of those services improved. I created the flags (someone else was kind enough to then improve the NOAA flag) in order to associate them with the USC&GS and NOAA ships for the very reason USC&GS and NOAA adopted them, i.e., to give the services a distinct, unique visual identity, and I thought the flags served exactly that purpose by making a good visual reference accordingly in ship info boxes just as they are intended to do aboard ship. That's also why I brought them up as icon candidates -- because they are flown aboard the ships by regulation as distinguishing marks, and therefore have a different character than flags merely flown over buildings or sitting behind the podium in the agency's auditorium (I would never consider putting non-nautical service flags in ship articles). I had no idea that Wikipedia would have such a rigid rule against inclusion of such flags, and my entire endeavor has now backfired, as it appears that the flags will be banished to one or two articles on the agencies themselves and maybe a couple of flag galleries, and will remain very obscure. I think that that is too bad and goes against the spirit of the adoption of the flags by the services as nautical distinguishing marks. I leave you and anyone else involved with Wikiships with these thoughts in case room is ever made for flags flown specifically and by regulation as nautical "distinguishing marks" -- a category I suspect was not considered when the ensigns-only rule was adopted and imposed -- and now will direct my efforts elsewhere. And I thank you and others for their attention to this matter over the past few days. Mdnavman (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

Empire Bairn
An editor has raised an issue with the SS Empire Bairn article. The discussion can be found at User talk:Mutt Lunker. Would you mind looking over the discussion and article and maybe adding your 2p worth? Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some small changes to the article for categorization and in the infobox, mostly involving the Indian Navy service. As for the article itself:
 * Is there a source for the sentence Her uneventful wartime career is unusually well documented for a small cargo ship.? That seems to be an opinion and should be cited.
 * I agree with Mutt Lunker that rote recitation of convoy stats does not make for very good prose, or for very good reading. I don't think, however, that a list is necessarily the way to go either, though. I don't think that every convoy the ship sailed in—even if reliably sourced—should be listed in the article. For example, a quick cross-reference of the convoys cited in the article vs. a list of convoys hit by U-boats shows that Convoys TE 16, KMS 10G, ET 14, MKS 10, TE 20A, UGS 7, GTX 3, and UGS 37 all had losses. One could easily refine the prose to something like Over the next [number] months Empire Bairn made four round trips between British ports and [place]. One of these trips was in Convoy [Number], which sailed from [place] to [place] between [date] and [date]. This convoy was attacked by German submarine [Uboat number] on [date] and suffered the loss of [number] of the [number] ships in the convoy. Empire Bairn, however, safely arrived at [destination] on [date].
 * Some links that might be able to fill in a smidge more detail on the ship: http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/rep/TORCH/DDE-Torch.html and http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar//USN/CloseQuarters/PT-6.html. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree and changes on that basis would address my concerns. However that renders the tag on the section inappropriate. Would plain old  be the most pertinent one until the changes are made? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that or maybe ? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, changed it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Sorry I didn't see your RfA until after it was all over, or I'd have added my support! Congrats anyway. A while back you moved HMS Egyptienne (1801) to HMS Egyptienne (1799). Acad Ronin and I have been discussing this recently about what would be the best title. Naming conventions (ships) doesn't really clearly say what the correct form would be in this case, I for one would have thought moving it back to HMS Egyptienne (1801) would be the way to go, due to the longer and better known service as an RN ship, and that would fit with the titling by year of acquisition rather than the year of launch, as she was not HMS Egyptienne in 1799, but sailing for an enemy navy! Since you moved the article originally I thought you'd like to weigh in? Benea (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I too keep getting distracted. I think Acad, Rif and I are agreed as to the most appropriate title (HMS Egyptienne (1801)), but the title is currently blocked by a redirect with history. If you could use your admin superpowers to help move it, it would be greatly appreciated. Best, Benea (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling for uninvolved admin to observe user behavior
You may not choose to assist, but I see you as an administrator who rarely edits in the ACW cluster and a long-time Military History project participant. I need some uninvolved eyes to look at the user behavior of User:Valkyrie Red. The user seems to have a lot of passion for making one specific change in infoboxes: adding the modifier "decisive" to the idiom "victory". I think it's fair to say that the user seems to spend a large percentage of edits making this singular change, or arguing the position in talk. User has developed an annoying habit of actually declaring victory (in talk and in edit summaries) when other users tire of the discussion, even if a clear consensus against user's position exists. I'm wondering if a topic ban might eventually be necessary. Thanks even if you choose not to get involved this time. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray French (disambiguation)
Hello. Just to let you know, this dab has been nominated for deletion per Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maritime incidents and sub losses
Your input would be appreciated at this thread. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB drones
The hidden note you placed here has couased quite a stir. Cou;d you weigh in at Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, and explain what it is for? I've tried to explain what I think it's for, but an know-it-all IP is contesting its usage. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)