User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 6

Catwikiproject template
Too bad about Catwikiproject. I had not even realized it had gone to TfD until I saw on my watchlist that it had been dropped from all of the "Ships articles" categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I don't mean to be badgering; sorry about that. However, I have not seen any reason to believe that those that support niche naming conventions that preemptively disambiguate are thinking about the big picture. That doesn't mean that they aren't, of course, I'm just saying I don't see any reason to believe that they are. And if they aren't, that doesn't mean bad faith on their part, just that they're not looking at the big picture. The result is we have these key general conventions and guidelines that are getting ignored more and more often. When exceptions become the rule, what's the point of the rule? Why even have them? They become meaningless, and article naming in Wikipedia becomes a hodgepodge of conventions each crafted in some relatively arbitrary way. Oops there I go badgering again. Sorry again, and thanks for listening. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking in general terms (not about Russian submarine renames): if an argument has merits, it will stand on its own. Weak arguments are just that, and continually repeating them doesn't make them any stronger. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ship template
I am curious on what are you doing. It seems like you are reverting my edits on multiple pages. Could you please discuss before taking such drastic action? I have spent a great amount of time on this and would appreciate such courtesy. -- Cat chi? 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been awarded the Template Barnstar!

 * Thank you (blushes). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, no ... thank you for taking on this largely thankless task! (Now if only my spell-checker could catch when I put "your" instead of "you.")  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Template update, when you have a chance…
Got`r`dun! Also, I like your idea about using a back door sub-template, however my limited understanding of the template parser does not really make that an educated opinion. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

spectacular work

 * You know, I had to check all of those...then count up the points... :D Nice work! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One of your 52.428 million GAN's is on hold....
...here. Cheers! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean "52,428 million"? Get it right, man! ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles?
Hello Bellhalla! I noticed that you have written some excellent articles on ships and submarines. I just wanted to let you know that although these articles are generally shorter than most of the articles that are promoted to be featured articles, there is no size requirement for featured article status, and several very short articles have been featured in the past. I would encourage you to nominate some of your articles, as I think some of them might have a good chance of being promoted. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. Right now, I have two articles under consideration at FAC, SS Dakotan and SS Washingtonian, and would be hesitant to add any more until one or the other of those is promoted (thinking positively). — Bellhalla (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of German submarine U-164
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on German submarine U-164, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because German submarine U-164 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting German submarine U-164, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bellhalla, looking at the history of the set index, you can easily find out who tagged the page for speedy deletion. -MBK004 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was a sort of(?) usurped user account with a redirected talk page, so I wasn't sure if a message there would get to the right person. I figured if it was on a subpage of User:Cyde, that may be where Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx (usurped) got the idea… — Bellhalla (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

wp:GTC
you should check this page. you may or may not have thought about it before. Nergaal (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew that was a proposal a while back but did not know that it had ever been implemented. I'll take a longer look at it and, I suspect, have an entry or two at some point. Thanks for the heads up on that. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From a quick-check you have at least 3 topics eligible to become good topics. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Should I go ahead and submit the topics myself? Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which ones you mean, but go for it if you want to. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Featured topic candidates/U-1 class submarine
 * Featured topic candidates/U-3 class submarine
 * Featured topic candidates/U-5 class submarines
 * Featured topic candidates/USS Princess Matoika


 * If this is to be expected for GTC, I withdraw my support for these nominations. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving bureaucracy aside, is there anything wrong with Austro-Hungarian U-boats? Or better said, why do you think it should not be used for the U-x pages? Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, no. All the links point to where they are supposed to.
 * What I don't understand is the need to try and combine all of the templates into one ungainly and unsightly (no offense intended) template. The individual class templates—in addition to being the consensus way to handle ship class navboxes—are much cleaner and simpler, and connect related submarines to each other. If someone wants to visit the sub articles following the Fibonacci sequence or to see only odd numbered subs or whatever else, they can follow the link to List of Austro-Hungarian U-boats that appears at the bottom of each class template.
 * To me, combining them makes as much sense as combining, say Jupiter and Saturn, because someone might possibly want to get from the article on the Jovian moon of Io to the Saturnian moon of Tethys. Well, yeah, maybe someone might, but that doesn't mean we need to have a link to every possible article that someone might want to visit next from a navbox at the bottom of an article.
 * I withdrew support for the nominations because if a consensus-style template is going to cause so much wikidrama, GTC is not a process I care to subject myself to. There's already enough drama in my own life without artificially adding more. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree to your points, but for example the Jupiter/Saturn comparison is not 100% accurate. The problem here wasn't so much the connection between articles, but rather the usefulness of such a small template. For example the main Jupiter and Saturn templates include each over 10 links, while in this case, each of the templates has 3/4 links. Also, since all these articles are historical, I am not 100% sure why you think that jumping from U-1 to say U-5 is such an unlikely possibility. Anyways, if anything, I think that wp articles suffer from way to little templates rather than from too much navigation templating: asides from the very visited articles, most of the others rarely have any nav templates at all. I for example was not aware of any classes past U-43 since the main article is not complete. While for conesseurs like you the presence of such a template might seem rather not particularly revealing/gainly, for somebod outside the field, I believe it does an ok job of introducing the scope of the A-H U-boats. Ah, and one more thing: the template now has ~40 entries, and they can probably be rearranged/trimmed/etc in a better format. Nergaal (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually one more thing: check Solar System moons (compact), which if I am not wrong, is placed on all the major moon articles. If you want a comparrison, then think of the major moons vs the rest to be similar to launched U-boats vs never finished ones. Nergaal (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand my points, whether you agree or not. I do understand your reasoning though I do not agree with it, and I'm not sure that I see anything that would convince me of the necessity of the template. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

U-21, U-22, and U-23
I have reviewed these articles. Since they are so similar I just looked them all over at the same time, all passed. You don't seem to be one to display awards, but recognition is appropriate for 3 simultaneous GAs nonetheless. Good job!

- Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No need or consensus for mass changing of warship to ship
There was absolutely no need for the bot run to change warship to ship. Because is a redirect to  undefined, its invocation is the same as an an invocation of  undefined. Regardless of the template chosen, the presentation to the reader is the same, which puts these edits in the realm of the trivial and, thus, makes them unnecessary. Further, when the option of mass replacement of with  undefined was brought up here on the discussion page of WikiProject Ships there was no consensus for this sort of change. The case could actually be made that there was, in fact, more of a consensus that this should not be done than the other way. All that your bot run has accomplished, in my view, is a clogging of my watchlist with trivial edits that have no net benefit for the readers, the ones for whom we are building this encyclopedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The total amount of change was several articles. Someone else made the change before me. I merely finished the job. Would you like me to convert ship back to warship? I can do that. If not, what is the issue? -- Cat chi? 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

File vs Image
Looks like there are 3 holdouts from whatever was going on the other day with the most recent change: Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles. I can't see any reason why these are remaining "unassessed". --Brad (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that they're probably examples of the "this list may sometimes be slightly out of date" admonition that appears on category pages. Or at least I hope they are. If they aren't, I have no idea why they would be still appearing there. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering. They've been in there a few days now. --Brad (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Empire Ships
I've commented on the talk page of the template and suggested another way to split the template. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Havmanden class submarine (1911)
The article Havmanden class submarine (1911) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Havmanden class submarine (1911) for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bacliff, Texas
I have reverted your promotion of this article, as it does not even come close to meeting the Good Article criteria. There is too much information missing and much work to be done. Sections are also seriously out of order and the article needs a complete overhaul. It's probably C-class right now, but definitely not GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the notice, but disagree with your assessment. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
on your new Featured Articles. Two at once! Kablammo (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown
Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on USS Orizaba (ID-1536) - well-written, great contribution to the topic on a historic issue that adds encyclopedic value, and this is certainly reflected in the support earned during its FAC, good work. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Indomito class destroyer

 * Kudos to you, sir, for another excellent article! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Empire Ships
What do you think about splitting the template by first letter of suffix, with ships being split by type in that template? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What shall we do with the drunken sailor
Hey Bell, do you have any comment on my speculation that Beramba is a mistaken transciption of The Omrah? Some of the information seems to match up quite well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may well be, but whether or not it is, SS Omrah is notable. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great thanks. I didn't think of the naming convention starting with SS, what does that stand for anyway? I think a redirect from Omrah would be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SS stands for steamship. It's possible that she was actually a Royal Mail Ship or RMS'' since the Orient Line shared the Australian mail contract, but I have no source on hand at present to indicate this. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize you had just created the SS Omrah article. I thought it was always there, and I just hadn't seen the article. Anyway, thanks for you interest and consideration of my wild theories, and also for creating the Omrah article. I see a pic was added too. She's looking good! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bell can you check this article out? There's some unformatted stuff from that website at the bottom. I don't know what it means. Also I left a question on the talk page. And I'm wondering we can move the existing RMS Andania to RMS Andania II per Cunard's naming conventions and there being 3 Andania ships. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you wanted me to check out, what with no link and all... ;) As to the Andania article, If it were to be moved, the naming conventions would suggest that RMS Andania become a set index page (similar to a disambiguation page) and the current article would be moved to RMS Andania (1922). — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So you wanted a link too? Jheesh! How about this one, per your and Mjroots instructions... RMS Andania (1913) On the Andania (a place in Greece I think) article page can we disambiguate to the disambiugation page for the ships? How would you go about that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved the first article to RMS Andania (1922) and converted RMS Andania into a set index page. I also changed the link in the Cunard template on the 1922 ship page, but it will take while for the changes to filter through to all of the articles where it's transcluded. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I can't get Mel Gibson running around Galipoli out of my head since working on that article. Interesting that the ship had some intriguing history. There's more on the talk page, but I haven't had a chance to rewrite, and add it yet. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
I've responed to your comments on my review. I would love to see the problems fixed and this article listed. Keep up the good work! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Whoa! Congrats, Admiral. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Child, you do realize that that is his fourth time receiving this particular award? -MBK004 06:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
Hello!

Thank you very much for the time and feedback. Such a detailed feedback is truly appreciated. I will be sure to address each point in the time provided. Just two Points as a background information. 1. The images of the Ace Leaders were inherited from their own articles. 2. During the Peer Review, the reviewers were equally divided over Rank or unit names. Specifically weather to have German Name follwed by translation in parenthesis or Vice versa.

I will post all my detailed points on the Review page. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the time.

Perseus71 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi !


 * As you can see, I have completed some changes. But I am really sorry it looks like I am not going to be able to complete the Complying the GA Review Comments in the time limit. I will definitely finish by December 17th. Could you please extend the timeline till then ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a problem. It's a long article and I know you have been working on it. Extending the hold 'til the 17th is fine by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have almost completed incorporating review comments. I am working on addressing your first comment for Review Criteria 2. That too is almost done. I'd appreciate if you could review my incorporation.
 * I am embarrassed but have no choice to request for a bit more time. My other life is making heavy demands on my time. :( Perseus71 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would through the 22nd be enough time? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have finally completed all the pending activities. There are three comments that are outstanding. I have provided my comments on the same. I have also removed the {inuse} tag as well. I'd appreciate if you could let me know your views on those three outstanding. Once again appreciate your time invested. Perseus71 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bellhalla,
 * I'd once again like to thank you for the time you invested in working with me and reviewing the article. I'd especially like to thank you for the patience you showed me with my time mismanagement. As to taking to Class A status, I know there's a proper process for the same. However could you let me know how much improvement does it need ? A lot or a reasonable amount ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bellhalla,
 * I did not mean any disrespect on the A Class Review page of JG1 Oesau. If it came across as such then I wish to offer my unconditional apology. All I was trying to do is to mention the topic to pre-empt any question that might come up. That is all there is to it. I value your time and I thank you for the time you invested. Perseus71 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary, since I took no offense whatsoever at what you posted. I wanted to save other editors from having to read the other discussion by summarizing my reasoning. Good luck on the article, but I'm not sure you need it since it appears to be well on its way to A-Class. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Timothy Bloodworth
Has this article been expanded enough to go for DYK? I've got a cracker of a DYK in mind if it has. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've nominated SS Timothy Bloodworth, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit.  Decided to go for it, looks like it should be long enough, and we'll have time to expand a bit more if not. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

United States Ambassadors
Hello. I see you created these pages: United States Ambassador to Barbados, United States Ambassador to Grenada, United States Ambassador to Dominica, United States Ambassador to Saint Lucia, United States Ambassador to Antigua and Barbuda, United States Ambassador to Saint Kitts and Nevis and United States Ambassador to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. I have recently created Sally Shelton-Colby's page after she gave a talk at my university, and she is not listed on some of these pages...I was wondering if you would have the time and energy to make longer lists and possibly create referenced pages of more ambassadors?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the infoboxes are quite useful. I also didn't find a reference for Sally Shelton-Colby's ambassadorship to Barbuda and the Grenadines (see, which I used for the infoboxes), though your lists seem to suggest they go together.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Just a reminder, but the review will close in two days, so please address the current issues. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates and links
What do you mean about the date formats and linking in the references? Are you referring to where I linked " 2008-12-20 ", and other such things in the reference templates? I do it that way because it saves space instead of spelling it all out to be "December 20, 2008". My interpretation of the dating guidelines is that linking should not be done in the prose of the article, but they don't actually say anything about doing it for the citation templates. The only reason I even do it for them is because they have yet to make their "date" section autocorrect the "year-month-day" style into "month day, year" format. I've actually requested on the citation templates that we fix all of the dating sections to autoconfigure those particular inputs, but no one has responded.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, those (the " 2008-12-20 " style links) are what I was talking about. The way I interpret the MOS, linking dates for auto-formatting purposes is discouraged—regardless of where the date appears. The problem with date formatting is that it conceals inconsistencies with dates. If you were to look at Characters of Smallville while not logged in, you would see the ISO-style dates intermixed with other date styles. Note 94, for example reads like this:
 * Kristin Dos Santos (2008-06-03). "Smallville Season Eight: Look Who's In!", Eonline. Retrieved on 4 June 2008.
 * with the two dates (article date and the retrieval date) inconsistent. When I'm logged in, my date preference of "month-day-year" makes it look like this:
 * Kristin Dos Santos (3 June 2008). "Smallville Season Eight: Look Who's In!", Eonline. Retrieved on 4 June 2008.
 * Other user preference options might similarly be inconsistent. I brought it up because from my observations of FAC process, it would most likely be brought up by a reviewer. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)