User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 7

Well done!

 * Thanks. I guess 40+ DYKs, countless B-Class articles, 50+ GA articles, 4 Good Topics, 19 A-Class articles, 9 Feature Articles, largely implementing the new consensus naming style for all German U-boats, expanding the almost nonexistent coverage of Austro-Hungarian U-boats, winning the MILHIST Contest four of the six months I entered it while twice setting the monthly point total record just wasn't quite enough. ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That was not lost on me either :) Part of it, I suppose, is based on visibility. Talking of which, we've got the coordinator elections coming up again soon (March). Perhaps you should consider standing. You'd be a great asset :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FS Curie
BH: Thank you for all of your hard work. I don't "do" graphics (so no barnstar), I therefore Mention you in Dispatches for your hard work on that article. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. But, for the sake of my curiosity, can you explain what "Dispatches" is? Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SS John Stagg
I've replied to your question on the AfD page as to why I think John Stagg is notable. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been kept. Maybe you could expand a little with the sources you mentioned in the AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary)
Hi. I am reviewing your article,SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary), for GA and have left comments at Talk:SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1. I may be adding more comments, although reading through the article, all seems in order, except for the lead. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of FS1037C-related talk templates
Template:FS1037C talk and Template:FS1037C MS188 talk have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of ship launches in 1946
Hi, you re-ordered the table and unbolded the ship names. The result is that this table is now completely different in apperarance to all the others. I'd have thought it better to have a consistent format across these lists. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it's a list of ships, I felt it important to, you know, actually list the ship somewhat early in the table. If the article were title "Chronological list of countries' shipyards that launched ships", the former order might make sense. As for the bold type, it is in contravention of WP:BOLD, and seems to have been added solely to emphasize the ship name as a result of the poorly thought out table design.


 * In my encounters with other "ships launched in XXXX" pages, they already seem to have a mish-mash of styles — some with colors, some with prose listings, etc. Perhaps this could be suggested as an example of how to format other years? — Bellhalla (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but I'm not going to reorder them all. What about the display of the country's flag by use of Flagicon? Table at the moment looks rather bland. IMO, UK ships should use the correct ensign rather than the Union Flag. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the flag materially add anything to these lists that the country name alone cannot convey? I tend to think that when they are all U.S. or UK ships (with a smattering from other countries) that the flags are being just decorative, which is exactly described in WP:ICONDECORATION.


 * Changing them all or not is completely up to you. I hope I my answer wasn't implying that it was your responsibility, because it surely isn't. On the contrary, we all have you to thank for taking the initiative in getting this list (and the 1947 list, as well). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the flags do add to the lists, especially where a historic flag is shown which is different to the current flag, or that of a country which doesn't exist today. I know it's not my responsibility to change all the lists of ship launches, just as it't not your responsibility to create the remaining lists of windmills by county for the UK. I was merely commenting that I've got better things to do (Like finish off the Empire ships article for those whose suffix begins with A). Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems on the ship lists. It's all good :)


 * Speaking of the Empire ships, I inquired at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the Mariners website that gets used in some of the Empire ships. You might be interested in the reply. The discussion is here. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented re the Mariners website. I'd say that it is generally a RS, but info sometimes needs cross-referencing to ensure accuracy (shouldn't we be doing this with all sources as far as possible?). Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the initiative and created 1947 when I found four ships when looking for 1946 launches. I've also found a few for 1948, but not enough to feel comfortable creating that page. Any help would be great! -MBK004 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to short-change you the credit for 1947. (I had seen your comment about creating it.) My point was that if Mjroots hadn't inquired about the 1946 list, 1947 would remain a redlink. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Also, I'm sure someone would have gotten to it eventually. I'm thinking about trying to fill in all the redlinks in the footers at the bottom for the years. -MBK004 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a general Shipevents template so that there aren't separate ones for each decade. (I'm still working on a better looking template at the moment.) Right now typing this:
 * produces this:
 * produces this:


 * Having a general one helps to avoid situations like this, with two consecutive templates. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a great help to me as well for the redlink fill-in. Also, have you seen this nav template: TLS-L? While not ideally suited for what we would want, it may help a bit. -MBK004 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that before. A concern I would have would be that the ship event articles seem to go back to the 1860s or 1870s, which would make a comparable template a little bit longer. What would be ideal, but would require some additional categorization would be something like this:


 * The decade links could go to categories like "Ships events in the 1940s", for example.


 * I happened to take a look at WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/2009Format/eg and like the idea of the templates suggested for the Launch section, and feel that a comparable template could be implemented for ship launches, for example. Dang. Just what I need, another tempting reorganization project… — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Empire Ships template
I've had a go at reorganising the template to split by suffix. Please see the template talk page as I need a little help to finish it off before it can be introduced. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look this over yet? Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I've taken a look and am still pondering. Will put comments there soon. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request
"Bergudi kikötőjében ismeretlen okokból elsüllyedt a 8 méteres vízben. Kiemelték, és a benne maradt egy embert még életben találták. A Danubius Hajógyárban rendbe hozták, majd átment Polába további javításra, azután próbautakat tett."

She/It (note: the sub) sunk in the port of Bergud for unknown reasons, at a point where the water was 8 meters deep. When brought to the surface a man was found inside alive. It was repaired in the Danubius shipyard, and then underwent further repairs in Pola, before taking some test trips. Hobartimus (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Or should I say "Köszönöm szépen". :) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, ask again any time. Hobartimus (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Földközi-tenger means Mediterranean Sea. The "re" at the end of the Hu version simply means to the, onto the. So the whole sentence would be "A Cattarói-öbölből a földközitengerre indult bevetésre. "From the bay of Cattaro it started to sail towards the Mediterrean Sea to see action/to begin it's mission. " The Mediterrean Sea is where most such A-H ships would go first before they can get anywhere else even more precisely it would be the Adriatic Sea. Hobartimus (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Reorganization attempt
Well, I like it, but not as much as I do when it is used for spaceflights: 2008 in spaceflight. One thing, for the Caronia, she flew the British Red Ensign (File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg) as did most Cunard and P&O liners. More tomorrow... -MBK004 08:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No you didn't miss them, I've been pretty busy in real-life over the past week. I've got some time later today when I'll take a closer look. -MBK004 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problemo. Take your time. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A note...
Today, I went to review SM U-69 after seeing it on the GAN page (nominated January 9), only to discover that I had already passed it to GA status on January 4. Not sure what happened there, but I'm just going to go ahead and quietly remove it from the GAN page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. That was strange. It looks like it was my mistake in re-nominating it. Thanks for catching that. —


 * My mistake was a typo: It was to have been SM U-67 and not SM U-69 tat was nominated. I'll correct and restore the listing in the queue. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SM U-41 (Austria-Hungary)
I have recently reviewed this article. Could you please look at the review page? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the GA review page. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at those comments. I've left one more on the page. Also, if you could either post messages on my talk page or leave a talkback template there, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)\
 * Yes. I've passed it, though I have to go to swim practice right now, so if you could add it to the good articles page and change the template on the talk page, that would be great. If not, I'll just do that in a few hours. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa
I replied on my talk page, sorry for the delay in responding. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Please visit Talk:SM U-29 (Austria-Hungary). Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the GA review page. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You could write a short sentences where the captains of SM U-29 (Austria-Hungary) went after being replaced. That would provide a rounded picture because you're telling what they did before taking command. It passed GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * None had any U-boat commands after their charge of U-29 and further biographical info (other than date of death) is absent from Uboat.net in most cases. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Dzhurma
Thank you for improving the article on the SS Dzhurma; nice job.Ekem (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Trivial edits with AWB
I am sorry for those edits, I was looking, and didn't see much, it appears... It was at about 0130 for me though, so you can (hopefully) partially understand, and I am sorry for the inconvenience that it caused. T ARTARUS talk 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you (again) redux

 * PS: Where's the vanity page displaying this lot? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Bellhalla/Awards. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mare Island Naval Shipyard
According to the article, MINS is across the river from Vallejo, California. Perhaps the ships built there belong in a separate category. What do you think? -- Stepheng3 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Are you talking about instead of or in addition to the ? I created the category and have been adding Mare Island ships to it because, for most ships built at Mare Island, the text of the articles (usually from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships) gives the location as Vallejo. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the sources don't distinguish, then it's hard for us to do so. Hmm.  Perhaps we should rename the category to Category:Ships built in Solano County, California with a note explaining that it includes both Vallejo and MINS. - Stepheng3 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify my remark, the text usually says something like "… built/laid down/launched/etc. at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California", in effect giving both locations. I've not come across any articles classed that were Vallejo but not MINS. In the mean time, I'm going to do is finish the list of articles for, then if we decide to rename to your suggestion or perhaps it can be done either as a straightforward CFD or as a bot request. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. For now, let's leave the category where it is.  I'll try to clarify the scope of the category (without renaming it). -- Stepheng3 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

*Gulp*
Looks like I took that a bit too far. :\ Thanks for the fix! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, was it really necessary to have this edit summary? Evil, I tell you...evil. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help it. I was channeling turn-of-the-20th-century headline writers. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it. You've gone and done it. You've got a TPS'er now. :P
 * But on to serious things. I've dragged you into about 3 different drama points (SandyGeorgia's TP, Connecticuts FAC, WT:DYK).....and, well, I'm really sorry for it. :/ I owe you bucketloads of thanks for helping me through this (and with the article!), but I'm really sorry for dragging you into this. :( If there is plagiarized text in there, it wasn't my intention (but I don't think that this is any...) But I digress. Basically, thanks × infinity. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs) ' 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That it is attributed, to me, means that there was not plagiarism. While it is certainly best to not duplicate any sentences or phrases verbatim, I honestly don't see anything so unique about the phrases given as examples that they could only have come from the source. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nathan F Cobb corrections
Hello Bellhalla, Please check whether I made satisfactory POV corrections in the Nathan F Cobb Shipwreck article. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Shinano
I've fixed the issues. That said, be aware that someone keeps adding back in the things I delete from the page (to address your concerns). If the issues magically pop back up, just rollback/revert to the my last edit to the article - at which point it will have been addressed. Cam (Chat) 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Milhist logo
Do you have time to knock up a graphic saying
 * WikiProject
 * Military history

in the same style/typeface as the "Bugle" logo please? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll be in and out today, but that should be an easy thing to do. I'll post here when I have it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not getting this sooner (I had now-resolved computer issues with PhotoShop). — Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)



Thank you very much. I've dropped it the dummy of the next front page. I'll ask Kirill to sort the html, it's not quite right. Thanks again! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not too much trouble, is there any chance of a couple of variants? The first would be to have the text in gold, rather than bronze, for maximum contrast, and the second would be having the Military history in CAPS. We're also looking to render the Milhist icon per this, but in gold. Can you help with that too? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bellhalla? We love you... ;) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll give it a whirl… — Bellhalla (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are three variations covering everything(?) you wanted to see… — Bellhalla (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thank you very much. Kirill thinks the "gold" is a bit too bright. Is there any chance you could make it darker/redder? The other small problem is that the "map" is rather blurred (perhaps it has a "glow" treatment?). Finally, and please scream if this is impossible, can the gold be rendered with highlights, like real gold, rather than a flat colour? Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Do you think you or Kirill could find an example of the shade of gold you're looking for, like maybe from List of colors or Template:Shades of yellow? That would make the color part a bit easier. (In the meantime, I'll make a guess and re-upload over the existing files.)
 * A problem I see with the map (and it does have an "emboss" effect on it that can be easily removed) is that being all in one color, the words/lines/shapes all blend together. I know the point of the map in this case is intended to be iconic rather than informative, but it does help to be able to tell that it is a map.
 * Finally, a gold metallic effect would be possible, but might take a bit longer. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried the color Old Gold for the new color, and also removed the emboss effect from the map. Any thoughts on the new color? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Shipevents
Is it possible to alter the template so that it shows +/- 5 years instead of +/- 4 years? Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN of Minas Gerais
Already?!? :) I know that I have to write a lead; I will get to it tomorrow. Thanks! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've already failed it for that reason alone.... ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evil. Pure evil. Yes, I am talking about you. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hold off reviewing until the expansion and cleanup tags are removed. (Technically, a cleanup tag is grounds for a quick fail.) Also, the Talk page doesn't have the GA nominee info on it. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is safe to review the article now. I didn't see any expansion or cleanup tags on it, and I just looked. -MBK004 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for that. I thought I'd added the article to my watch list but apparently hadn't… — Bellhalla (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary)
The article SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary) 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:SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary) for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks fine, so I have just gone and passed it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN for SM U-31 (Austria-Hungary)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87
I thought the citations were the strongest point! I thought I would have trouble with all the others! Given that I have most of the books given I can sort this out. I'll cover everything. Dapi89 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on the GA board. Dapi89 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I will take your comments on board and do as you have suggested when I figure out how best to tackle the points raised. I will nominate if for FA - but I'm not sure I would like it to be torn appart! Dapi89 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary)
The article SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-42
--Dravecky (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-43
--Dravecky (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-44
--Dravecky (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-45
--Dravecky (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-46
--Dravecky (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-47
--Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)