User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 4

USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280)
Hi Belhalla -- I noted your DYK nomination:
 * ... that U.S. Navy transport ship USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280) successfully avoided a torpedo attack in World War I, but was sunk in one during World War II? -- new article self-nom by Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And i commented in DYK: "There's a disclaimer template in the article indicating "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships", while my understanding of DYK rules is that only new writing, not EB 1911 or other PD text, is eligible. Could you please identify which text, if any, in the article is incorporated from that PD source? I would prefer the article be edited to remove the necessity for that disclaimer, to use in DYK."

This notice here as a courtesy so you might see that question/comment sooner, and to offer to discuss this between talk pages or elsewhere, if there is something to discuss. I am well aware that you are aware that i am aware, etc., that we have different points of view on what should be policy for use of DANFS text. I could have mentioned that, and you can obviously bring up any previous disagreements if you wish to, but I would prefer not to drag the DYK editors through past history. However, it is honestly my understanding that DYK policy is not to include articles involving PD text. Your article has many other sources, and unless there is a temporary server problem somewhere it appears to me that the DANFS article on this ship is extremely short, so it appears that very little editing, if any, would be required to justify removal of the DANFS disclaimer template. Could you simply do that small amount of editing, and remove the DANFS disclaimer, please? Otherwise it puts a burden on the DYK editors that is not necessary, in my view. doncram (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The one sentence was replaced and cited to an alternate source, for good measure. (So noted on the DYK page, also.) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I followed up there too with my tick mark.  I tried a wording edit in the article, too.
 * By the way, i note the Ingham mention with interest, then note that in the Ingham article, the account of its WWII service is really succinct and certainly does not mention Mallory. Was Ingham perhaps involved in too many rescues to mention them all, i wonder.  Anyhow it would be nice to see the Ingham article developed more, esp. as it is a museum ship and probably attracts readers before/after they visit. doncram (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the U.S. Coast Guard site there's quite an extensive history of Ingham that goes into a lot of detail. The link is here. Being public domain, you can just copy and paste... — Bellhalla (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate your agreement or opposition to a request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny  15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have withdrawn from this mediation request. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD closing
Hi, are you well-versed in AfD closing? I decided to withdrawing the nomination Articles for deletion/Many-finned sea serpent, but I can't close it. Can you please close this AfD.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Requests for arbitration. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct citation
You're right, my apologies. I'll go correct that now. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you've already gotten someone else to fix it. Sorry about that. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review for SS El Occidente
Bellhalla, I just wanted to let you know that I have completed the GA review for your article SS El Occidente. The review can be found here: Talk:SS El Occidente/GA1. The article is on hold for seven days to let you address the issues that I found with the article. All of my comments are minor (I think!), and should be able to be fixed or responded to with a minimal amount of time and effort! Please feel free to contact me via the review page (I have it watchlisted) or my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How did you find sources for SS El Sol
Hi. I was just reading SS El Sol, and I wonder, did you actually go find old newspapers to use as sources? Or did you use newer sources that in turn referred to the old articles? I'm just curious, really. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Through my university library. The database is called something like "Proquest Historic Newspapers" (or something like that). — Bellhalla (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool! Are they digitized? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, to an extent. You can search for terms, names, etc., which are compared to a full text version of the article. When you open the link, you are presented with a pdf file with an image of the article or advertisement (no text that you can copy or paste, for example), with an option to see the content in the context of the full page of the newspaper. The OCR for the text searches seems to be pretty good (though there's no way of knowing what articles are missed because of it). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SS Dakotan DYK
Just so you know I moved your SS Dakotan DYK submission to Aug 13 since that's when the expansion started. There is a minor citation issue that can be easily corrected for your first hook. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the heads up. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280)
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I have completed the GA review for USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280), with the review being located at Talk:USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280)/GA1. I have placed the item on hold, as there are just a couple of quick items to respond to. Please let me know either on the review page (which I have watchlisted) or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hello again! I've completed the GA reviews for SS El Sol (found at Talk:SS El Sol/GA1) and SS El Oriente (found at Talk:SS El Oriente/GA1). Both articles are currently on hold to allow you time to deal with a few minor issues. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope I've addressed the concerns you had with both articles. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Naval ships by era
I understand why you are watching this category, but can you explain why you think that Category:Military history by era applies to the Category:Naval ships by era? As I see it, naval ships are just weapons, and only actions they participated in would be history--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The category Category:Military history by era was placed on Category:Ships by era by an IP user. Since the latter category encompasses all ships, not just military ships, I moved the IP's cat addition from the latter category to Category:Naval ships by era. By the way, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that naval ships are "just weapons", but I certainly have no objection to their inclusion in Category:Weapon history. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, naval ships I supposed to be warships that belong to navies, and they are by and large weapon platforms while civilian ships are not. I'm not sure what is under the Category:Ships by era, but if they are passenger ships that were at some stage used by navies, they need to be moved to the Category:Naval ships by era since at the time of their use by navies they were either armed or carried some sort of military materiel such as armed troops, or military cargo and usually had some rudimentary auxiliary armament added, if only AA machine-guns that made them armed merchantmen and therefore subject to naval engagement during conflicts. These engagements are the military history part, but they would have articles of their own usually titles Action of XX Month, YYYY year at ZZZZZZZZZ place. The articles about the vessels themselves are just that, histories of their use (summaries of logs)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you re-read my comment, I was not disputing that naval ships are weapons, only your contention that they are just weapons. I have my opinion, you have yours, but the category can be in both (as it is now) to support each view. I'm cool with that.
 * As far as the distinction of "ships" versus "naval ships": "Ships by era" does include non-naval vessels. Ships that have been both civilian and naval ships—like SS Kroonland, a passenger liner but also a commissioned transport in WWI—should be (and for the most part are) properly categorized in both an appropriate "ship" and "naval ship" category. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so aside from the classification issues, what else is a warship other than a weapon platform, or a weapon with sea-going capability? Opinions are a plenty in Wikipedia, but I'm curious where you gained yours given the lots of quality articles you have done because I will be touching on the subject elsewhere--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes they are weapons platforms, but you can also consider them a fighting unit, much like one would a battalion or a division. (Certainly on a macro scale, a battalion, division, or army could conceivably be considered a "weapon" of sorts to the generals moving them around.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hi! Congraduations on two more well-written articles. I have completed the GA reviews of SS Dakotan (the review is at Talk:SS Dakotan/GA1) and SS Washingtonian (the review is at Talk:SS Washingtonian/GA1). I have placed the Dakotan on hold to allow time to review a couple of minor concerns. The Washingtonian I have passed to GA status. I did have one comment in the review, but it was nothing that would prevent the article from passing. If you have any questions, you can ask them on the review pages or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Lawrence Journal-World front page.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:The Lawrence Journal-World front page.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ViperSnake151 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

About Зырянин
According to this http://ntic.msun.ru/ntic/exhibition/fesco/second/f260.html the correct variant is Зырянин. Зыряне - Komi_peoples Hellinalj (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions, and all the best for your GAC! - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

USS City of South Haven (ID-2527)
I just created the above article and could use some help with it as ships are not really my area of expertise. I plan on working on it more tomorrow, but any help or advice you could offer would be appreciated. KnightLago (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a great start, but still needs some more work (but you knew that already, right?). Some suggestions that may help:
 * The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS for short) has information on the ship (scant though it is) here. WikiProject Ships has put together a guide for converting the public domain text from DANFS into Wikipedia articles at WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions.
 * Some general article guidelines are found at WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, and ship infobox information and an example can be found at WikiProject Ships/Tables.
 * If you have any questions or find any of the information confusing or seemingly contradictory, just ask. I'll try to help the best I can. Good luck working on it. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I got a basic outline going but it needs a lot of work. I will work on sourcing and improvement tomorrow. Anything you could do to help would be great. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you get a minute could take a look at the above article and offer any suggestions or advice that come to mind? I looked at adding a ship infobox, but at this point it is beyond me. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess besides more in-depth details, the only information I am having trouble with is the technical information about the ship. I really don't know how to format and describe the tons and length and stuff. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. KnightLago (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice expansion! I'll take a stab a creating the infobox but it won't be for a couple of days. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you do me a favor and take a try at creating an infobox for this article? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Iowa (BB-61)
Hiya Bellhalla. I know you're busy, but if you have amoment I could use another set of eyes here to help with the review. Anything you could do would be apreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Milhist contest

 * Wow! amazing work! Congratulations on your spectacular efforts this month (109 POINTS! Holy /OMITTED\!!).  Cam (Chat) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick review request
Hey, I know you're likely quite busy with the next round of Mercantile-Marine Vessel articles, but would you happen to have time next week to do a GA-Review of Operation Lüttich for me? I'm almost finished a complete rewrite of the article, so I wouldn't need the review done until sometime next week (if you need, I can do any GA-Reviews necessary for the next round of vessels). Best Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Date audit of USS Aeolius
Just why you'd want to retain that level of dilution of the high-value links in the article is an important question. Please note that the autoformatting of dates is now deprecated. I can supply further information if you require it.

As for the reversion without notice ... well, people are bound not to edit war, so if you feel really strongly about the blue-splotch, and are prepared to go against what has been a widely popular move to improve readability, appearance, and the highlighting of high-value links, so be it. I just think it's a pity for the article and its readers.

No hard feelings, but I hope to convince you that it's worth supporting the move. Tony  (talk)  14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, quite honestly, my personal preference is for unlinked dates and all the articles I've created recently use that style. What I was objecting to was the wholesale change of date style without discussion against what I thought was still an acceptable usage. I was not aware that the auto-formatted dates have now been deprecated, but since it looks like from MOS:NUM that there's another proposal regarding them it would seem prudent to wait until that has run its course before loosing the bots.
 * It would be more helpful (and honest) if the edit summary had said something like "removing linked dates now deprecated per MOS:NUM" rather than the misleading "date audit", which has no inherent meaning to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your exemplary work on military history articles and DYK entries. For the coordinators, Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Empire Galahad
I've seen the discussion about the new "free" image not being kosher as it's a derivative work. Exactly my point in the IfD of the original picture. So is the new image allowable on Wikipedia or not? If not, then could (should?) the original image be reinstated because it is fair use after all? Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the circumstances, the best solution might be to find a free image of a sister ship. Failing that, I think a better fair use case could be made for the photograph that was linked in the discussion than the painting. Despite the fact that there is artistry involved in taking photos (angle, exposure, timing, film choice, shutter speed, etc.), they apparently are considered less replaceable than illustrations. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Congratulations on your GA! - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

SS West Caruth
If you really used all the possible sources in this article, maybe criterion 2 might be met, but I failed it initially because there were large periods not mentioned within Career section (1924-1930, 1933-1944). As for criterion 5, if there is no image with SS West Caruth, would it be possible for you to post an image of a similar ship? Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ok, i'm going to assess it as B-class for the moment, even if it doesn't really look like a proper B-class article. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Arthur bliss lane.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arthur bliss lane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. this image has just been deleted from plwiki, cos no proper source was given to validy PD-GOV license. It's license status know, should be considered as unknown/uncertain Masur (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

SS West Cheswald DYK
Hello Bellhalla. I enjoyed this article, and found to be the most interesting fact to be the final one, that the ship continued to "be fought" even after it was sunk. You may want to consider an alternate hook based on that. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Retouching Image:Paul_H._Kreibohm_retouched.jpg.
Hello Bellhalla, I did some retouching and clean up on Image:Paul_H._Kreibohm_retouched.jpg. is it satisfying?  ■ MMXX  talk  20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MS West Honaker

 * This DYK? fact was from SS West Nohno. I have moved dyktalk from Talk:MS West Honaker to Talk:SS West Nohno. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Convoy battles
I see you’ve changed the titles on some of the convoy battle pages; do we have a convention for these names, or is this just your personal preference? Because I’ve not seen your format, using a hyphen, in the sources I’ve used, they tend to use full stop or a space. I can live with the hyphenated pages that others have done, but I don’t want us to be perpetuating a mistake, which is why I did them that way; and why, unless we do have a rule about it, I think they should go back to the way they were. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PS It is a better sort key, though; the other one seemed to put (for example) SC-7 after SC-26, which would be after SC-121. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No rule that I'm aware of per se. I just followed the example of the majority of the other convoy articles. There were about four or five that had "NN.###" versus about 20 or so with "NN-###" style (if I recall the numbers correctly). I don't really have a preference myself, except for consistency. As for sources, Morison's WWII U.S. Navy history and the U.S. Navy's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships seem to use the hyphenated style. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! Morison, of course! I should have remembered!


 * OTOH that sort of suggests a British/American usage thing, which raises another issue.


 * But I’m less bothered about the result here than (what I thought was) the implication that I was wrong, when in fact I thought it was me that was right.


 * And I am also bothered by the ‘consistency’ angle, changing minority pages/things to match the majority, when it’s the majority that might be wrong. Which is an issue I’ve raised here and here. On that subject, can you suggest how I should proceed with this? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I have no preference other than for consistency. If you believe that they should be changed to Convoy HX.### rather than Convoy HX-###, for example, I'd suggest starting a discusssion on an appropriate page, like WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force. A notice of the discussion WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS would be good, too.
 * Similarly, for U-boat page renames, choose one of WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force or WikiProject Military history/German military history task force, place a notice of the discussion at the other plus WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS as above.
 * The way I approached the renames was by examining all of the existing articles and observing the de facto consensus (if not an explicitly stated one) and moved the inconsistent articles to match. There's no agenda on my part to Americanize them. Consistency helps editors and readers alike by having articles at the expected location. If I'm writing an article about a ship that was in Convoy HX-235, I want to be able to type in the expected name—whatever that may be—and not have to search for whether this one is at "Convoy HX 235", "Convoy HX.235", or "Convoy HX-235". — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)