User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 5

Category:Science and technology in Austria-Hungary
Hi, I just noticed that Category:Science and technology in Austria-Hungary (which you created earlier this year) is empty save for Category:Ships of Austria-Hungary. Were you planning on populating it with articles? If it remains empty there's no reason to keep it around -- but I thought it was better to give you the opportunity to populate it rather than taking it straight to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, any thoughts on this? Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No thoughts. If you wish to remove it, that's fine with me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin
Hey. I stumbled across some of your work, and am quite impressed. As a result, I was wondering if you would like to consider adminship at WP:RFA. I'd gladly nominate you if you're interested, let me know. Wizardman 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also offer up a co-nom if you're interested? -MBK004 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the thought, but at this time, the RFA process is not one I'd rather go through. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MS West Grama DYK
Congratulations! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian pronuciation
Dear Bellhalla My Russian isn't great, and my IPA is barely existant! I've done Tashkent, but I recommend you get somebody to check the IPA in due course. Your transliteration for Zyrianin is also correct, but my bash at the IPA could easily be wrong (although in the ballpark). Incidently, Zyrianin would be translated into English as "Zyrian", a branch an individual of the Komi peoples, in much the same way as an English speaker would name a ship Cossack or Apache. Yours Shem (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Campfire logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Campfire logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
I reviewed your 3 GA nominations: MS West Grama, USAHS Blanche F. Sigman and USS West Corum (ID-3982). Cheers! &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Convoy battles, again
I’ve had a look at some books for this (and for your question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships I’ve replied there on that). The hyphen does seem to be American usage; British (and Canadian, if Milner is anything to go by) is full stop or space.

So I’m inclined to move the pages I’ve done to using a full stop, and labelling them for British English. There’s also a strong national interest ( as most of the convoy battles in the Battle of the Atlantic were British or Canadian affairs).

Is that going to cause problems? That's not my intent. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Having two naming systems in use would bother me. Which naming style is chosen, not so much. I do think it wise to bring this to a wider audience in case there are others with preferences. After all, before I made any changes, the majority of the articles were named in the hyphenated style. I've started a discussion at WT:MILHIST, so hold on for the moment to see what the consensus may be. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking templates
I noticed that you have demanded unlinking of the template cite news. In case I misunderstood the changes, please could you update the edit to also de-link the dates in the ISO 8601 format, and may I suggest you also update the explanatory notes to reflect the changes. In addition, could you also request that Cite web and Japanese episode list be delinked? Many thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well to characterize it as a demand is a bit much. I wanted to allow the option of unlinked dates. I don't know if you looked at any of the discussions at Template talk:Cite news but ther are several topics that are related to a wide-scale revamping of the family of templates; perhaps one of those dicussions would be the place to bring up the changes you seek. My edit request for cite news is a temporary measure that would add the unlinked retrieval dates as an option and not require a bot to go through and rework however many untold thousands of instances of  there are. By the way, in cite web one can have an unlinked ISO retrieval dates (if one really wants them) by using putting an ISO date in either of the parameters "accessdaymonth" or "accessmonthday". — Bellhalla (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat naming
I noticed your revisions of U-boat page names, e.g. Unterseeboot 151 (1917) to SM U-151. The form used in German-language texts differs slightly, i.e. SM Unterseeboot U-151 in the case of World War One boats, and Unterseeboot U-859 in the case of World War Two ones.

Salmanazar (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This naming style is from the consensus derived from discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Please feel free to bring this up in that forum. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

German submarine U-1
In answer to your post; I feel like I’m being told to mind my own business on this.

I changed the header, because the title said “German submarine... and the article still said “unterseeboot...

And I changed it simply to “submarine because, patently, not all the boats on the page are German.

And I deleted the redlinks because whatever the right format for UB-1, etc, is, unterseeboot B-1 is wrong. (I know that you (and benea and parsecboy) have a preferred option for the WWI boats but I still haven’t seen a consensus on that, which is why I was hanging fire).

Anything else wrong with the page was there before i started.

(And sorry, I’ve no idea what piped links are).

At some point I was going to tackle the other disambiguation pages, but if it’s going to be an issue, I’ll wait. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Albert G. Walker
Hello. A disambiguation page you created is being cleaned up, and we could do with your help; please have a look at Talk:Albert G. Walker. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of U-boats
I see you've re-worked this page, without any discussion at all. So if I want a change I should consult, and get a consensus, but you can change what you like when you like? Bloody Hell! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The page purported to be a list of all German U-boats, yet appeared to be a list of U-boat articles (i.e. no red links for articles not yet written). I wanted to add in the red links and revamped the list a bit. But as far as changing "what you like when you like", that seems to have been your tactic with the convoy articles where a consensus had been reached to use a space. Oh well. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, by the way, a difference between changing one article, List of U-boats, and changing entire naming schemes of things like U-boats or convoys. If you remember, after you objected to the moves of several convoy-related articles I had made only for consistency, I took it to WT:MILHIST to seek a consensus. That's the same tack I suggested for you regarding U-boats article names. I see no inconsistency. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Albert G. Walker
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Albert G. Walker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Erik the Red  2    01:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. Thank you. ---MBK004 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN
are you considering submitting SS Pennsylvanian to wp:GAN? 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has already passed an A-Class Review through the Military History WikiProject, so I don't really plan to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New Article user box
Hi Bellhalla. How do I integrate the "New Article" user box in my horizontal user box collection. The one you use only wants to be vertically aligned. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to work just fine in the horizontal format. I did notice that, for whatever reason, the "|}" needs to be on a separate line following the formatting for the user box. Maybe that was causing the problems for you? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names
Are you happy with the latest proposal here? Your views would be appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't known the discussion had continued even further. I'd already moved the Arctic (PQ) convoys to the space name yesterday (with redirects from all the other variations as well). I posted an endorsement at WT:MILHIST for completeness. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Empire Galahad
Thanks for reassessing this. I not you state the criterion for referencing is not met. Where does this need improvement as all statements in the main body of text are referenced. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph under the "History" heading doesn't have any inline references. That was the only one I saw. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, article expanded a bit too. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Constitution MoS
Wondering if you could take a look at USS Constitution to spot any MoS things that need cleanup? I plan on going for FAC soon as redlink fills are finished. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK?
Have you thought about getting a DYK for USS West Ekonk (ID-3313)? It would be a fairly easy one to get. RockManQ (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Edits to USS West Ekonk (ID-3313)
I'm awfully sorry if I did something negative to the article. Could you please tell me exactly what I did wrong? I don't remember what I did other than changing "4 days" to "four days" and can't seem to figure it out for the article history. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with U-5 class submarine at T:TDYK
Please review the issues I have posted under Template talk:Did you know regarding the article U-5 class submarine. The part about SM U-5 being the only member of the U-5 class submarines to survive World War I is unsourced. Great job for your other DYK submissions, especially that triple nom! Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Hey there. I've added a new GA Review for the U-Class subs on the talkpage of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that I have addressed your concerns with the article. Could you take another look when you have a chance? Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies, real-life keeps getting in the way! I will examine your changes post-haste! Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problems. Didn't know what you were watching... — Bellhalla (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Antonio Pugliese GA review
Thank you for reviewing this article. I have made several changes to the article, and I have replied to your comments on the review page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Same from me. You must be approaching Avogadro's Number in articles created here....maybe that'll have some bizarre effect on the space-time continuum ;) Cam (Chat) 07:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy
Howdy The problem of references in Archibald Gracie III has been fixed thank you for addressing it. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Duke R. Oliver I His Duchy 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohioan
SS Ohioan and USS Ohioan, I'm unclear how you decided on which article name (meaning, I'm not sure if a ship like this goes in Transport or Warfare at WP:FA). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Transport since the bulk of her service was non-military (largely that's what a naming choice is based on, unless the ship was particularly notable for one type of service). Maralia (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I wondered; thanks Maralia! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Mahratta (G23)
Hi, would you please cast your expert eye over this article which I created today? Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to ship index articles
Dear Benea & Bellhalla, I'm sure there is no "troublemaking" going on! I'd hate to see unnecessary work from anybody - there are an awful lot of ship index pages out there! I have to say, I prefer the disambiguation data hidden, but I'm not sure it's all that important. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I knew you weren't casting aspersions. :) Yours is a valid point and bringing it up made me aware of other opinions on the matter, and I appreciate that. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MV Faina
Flags / Port of registry.

I'm not sure the infobox as displayed is correct, as the port of registry only gives a country. Would the infobox look better if presented the way that MV Empire Galahad is, with each change of flag documented? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The style at MV Faina is preferred, especially for present-day merchant ships, given the number of flag changes that seem to have more relation to financial advantage than to national identity. Having a large flag confers more of a nationality on a ship than can be assumed, these days especially. For MV Empire Galahad, it was more apparent that it was a British or Italian ship, for example, so the nationality is easy to assess. For Faina what flag would you put? Panamanian since that's where the company that owns it is located? Ukraine, since the operating company is based there? Or Belize, where it's registered? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd use the flag that the ship flies (or flew). In Empire Galahad's time it was less complicated, as flags of convenience were rarer. Comments noted re unfree images! Not sure about how to expand the lead. Empire Galahad was one of may "Empire ships" built during WWII. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of A test page
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Readro (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Empire Ships
I've found a list of Empire Ships, and have started on creating lists for Wikipedia - see here. The basic info I've found should give enough info to search and make an article of each ship too! Any comments? Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are a couple of aspects to comment on. First off: reviewing the sample/draft you've prepared. I like the layout and the level of detail. I would recommend the headings be italicized since they are ship names, too. I also noticed there are several U-boat links where the "name", i.e. "U-100" is not italicized either. In discussions at WT:SHIPS there's been a consensus reached to italicize U-boat names. (While there are, no doubt, many non-italicized U-boat names in WP, it would be nice to not add any new ones.) You might also consider using the anchor template for each name to allow a direct link to a ship. So if you entered  on your list, someone could have a piped link to it, like this User:Mjroots/sandbox.
 * The second aspect is the idea of the list itself. If this is to be in the article namespace (i.e. as an actual article, like List of Empire ships), you might need to be prepared to answer why this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Yes, the ships all begin with the word Empire, but from all appearances they are of differing designs, classes, sizes, countries of manufacture, methods of acquisition, etc., and, I suspect/fear, that there are many editors out there that would call it "indiscriminate". (If, of course, the lists are intended as something that will remain in your userspace as an aid to creating new ship articles, you don't need to worry about this aspect.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The italics thing is a minor omission, articles in my sandbox often have little bugs like that. I'm not sure whether to release it as an article or use it as a basis for creating articles - my biggest worry there is that at the moment it is almost wholly from one source. I'm not familiar with the anchor template. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably better to go the route of individual articles first, then maybe the list at a later date or a template to link all the Empire ships. SS Empire Abbey created and nom'd for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why a list wouldn't be an indiscriminate collection of information? Well, the List of Liberty ships exists already, so a precedent has been set. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, Liberty ships were all a uniform type or class of ship. Second, when there are questions regarding whether or not something should be in Wikipedia, the existence of other stuff is usually discounted as an argument. I'm not saying a list of Empire ships is definitively indiscriminate, but trying to think ahead and can envision people who might think it indiscriminate. If you had an article entitled List of people named John, that would be indiscriminate, since there's no connection other than a coincidental one involving names (which, in most cases, are determined by parents rather than the people who might be on that hypothetical list). Since the Empire ships were a such a diverse collection of ships that shared a common naming style, I can see similarities with my example. Please don't take what I'm saying as discouragement or advice not to do something, by any means, because that's not how it's intended.
 * A good first step might be to create an article describing what an Empire ship is. The better you can define them in an article like that, the less likely a list of them would be challenged, and when created, the article could be linked from the template Empire ships. By the way, something in that template has left me with a question. Were there Empire ships that were not a part of the MoWT? If not, that secondary header to the left could be eliminated. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will think about an article for Empire ship. To answer your last question, yes. Those ships requistioned for the Suez Crisis were not MoWT ships as it had ceased to exist by then. Re the template, is it possible and would it look better if the "Empire" prefix was removed from all entries? Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I'd stick to keeping the full name (but keeping the SS, MV, etc. prefixes hidden as they are now). OK, then next question: Does the MoWT designation in the template add anything meaningful enough to take up the extra space? (I ask because I think the template would look better without that taking up so much space on the left.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does look better without the MoWT taking up all that space. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)