User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 22



Mississippi class battleship
Mississippi class battleship  I haven't done much at WP for a while. I ended up getting the addiction back this week and blowing off life for a while. I took this orphan stub and tried to follow the lead of your excellent German Navy articles, and one of the older US BBs that got FA. It has a ways to go, especially some deeper info on the technical issues, that I'm going to develop in sandbox. Would you mind giving me some feedback on my progress. Cheers! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure - the article looks much better than it did just a few days ago, nice work! I suppose I'll bullet these out so they're easier to read:

I don't have as many sources on hand on US warships, but I do have Conway's 1906-1921 and Peter Hore's Battleships of World War I, which may be useful for you. Also, I have access to OSU's library (which is pretty good - it has nearly ever edition of Warship International back to the 1960s), so if there's anything you need I could probably get it through them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I noticed is you'll need conversions for all of the figures (you can use the convert template for that, like 13000 LT - I'm assuming long-tons - for the standard displacement).
 * Another thing I'd recommend is to not use the naval-history.net website - it doesn't provide its own references, and wouldn't stand up in a GA or FA review. I always prefer paper sources whenever possible, and only websites when they have some sort of published expert behind them.
 * I don't know if you've checked DANFS, but it might have some useful information (and potentially more useful photos).
 * This is probably for a little further down the road, but since you haven't done much here in a while, you might consider putting the article through a peer review cross-listed at WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST to help you get into the swing of the formal reviews like for A-class and FAC.
 * Thanks! This is great feedback.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could use some help researching technical data which might be available in your reference sources. If you have the time, could you look at: User talk:Kevin Murray/mississippi, where I've put what is mostly a copy of the technical section from one of your articles, about the German equivilent (i.e., last pre dreadnought).   I bolded the info that needs to be replicated.   Any help will be very much appreciated.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have to head off to work shortly, and I work again tomorrow, but I should have time on Monday to see what I can add. I should be able to get most of the information you need from Conways. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Outstanding! Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a bit done on the general characteristics and machinery, though there isn't as much information available to me on those subjects as for the German ships - Groner really has an incredible level of technical detail that I haven't seen equaled anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the armament section, I converted all references to gun sizes to what seems to be a conversion code (e.g., "12-inches" to "12 inch" - 12 & nsp ; inch). Is this the correct process/style?  I don't see the conversion, but I was just copying the process, assuing that it was doing some good.  Can you check this and/or point me in the right direction?  Thanks!  --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Franz von Hipper
Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Franz von Hipper.
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Franz von Hipper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have the subpage watchlisted so I'll see it when you fill it out. I look forward to working with you on this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article's passed! Congratulations!



Wilhelmina Will (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Drink to that? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly will! Thanks for reviewing the article and for the tea! Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Piave River (1809)
I see that you are an Ohio State grad and I'll swallow my Illini pride (U of Illinois '75) and ask a Big Ten rival for a favor. I noticed that Andynomite moved Battle of Piave River (1809) to Battle of Piave River. We had a nice chat on our talk pages in which I pointed out that the WW1 battle (Battle of the Piave River) was too close. Could you (or another person who is empowered to do so) revert Battle of Piave River so that Battle of Piave River (1809) is used again? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, I just moved the article back. And good luck getting the Illibuck back this year ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw that you fixed it. Somehow I never heard of the Illibuck, though I never missed a game between 1971 and 1974. It's probably because the Illini always lost. Now I feel as if I were cheated out of a key part of my education. Djmaschek (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I never heard of it at OSU either. Apparently this big tradition is sort of a secret. I only learned about it here on WP. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Kawachi class battleship
I was reading about various pre-dreadnought ships and ran across the article on the Japanese Kawachi class battleship. There is an apparent contradiction in the lead paragraph where it is described as both a dreanought and pre dreadnought. It, and the preceding class, appear to have a foot in each camp, but there should be some consistency in the lead paragraph. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there was a bit of confusion on whoever added the description of the ships as dreadnoughts (i.e., they assumed that since the ships carried 12 12-inch guns they must be dreadnoughts). I changed it to "semi-dreadnought" and added a note explaining the reason for that classification. Does it make more sense now? Feel free to play with the wording if you can improve it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
An article you were a significant contributor to was nominated at ACR without any notification -MBK004 05:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for sMS Braunschweig
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire
I've replied to everything.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied again :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, you may want to look one more time at my reply since I adressed the Fatih issue but not the Conway one. (The authors are all in order, there are three separate Conway books)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Erin (1913)
Hello

Can you check HMS Erin (1913). I understand that there was some problem with copyright but deleting whole text was ... strange for me. Its en.wiki policy ? PMG (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Ed rewrote the article so that it doesn't incorporated the copyvio text, so we're good now. To answer your question, yes, it's standard practice to remove plagiarized text completely, see WP:COPYVIO for more information. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I left everything that hadn't been copied from the other site, so basically the lead + a couple sentences. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good enough for now, I suppose. We'll get to a proper rewrite eventually. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That what i am talking about. I understand that its not possible to have on wiki articles with problems about copyvio. But deleting everything - included infobox, category and interwiki its not a typical solution :). PMG (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess whoever blanked the article didn't bother to check what exactly was copied and what was original. S/he should have been a bit more careful. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect
Hey Parsec. I've finally finished writing a draft on a Russian battleship, and was wondering if you could delete the redirect that links to the class page to mae way for my move. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I moved it for you, so you should be good to go for DYK/etc. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Preussen (1903)
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bismarck class
Hi, I took a look at the Bismarck class article which you are rewriting. IMO the following sentence "...the exact cause of her loss is uncertain, due to claims by survivors from Bismarck that they scuttled their ship." is a bit misleading. The cause of Bismarck's loss is obvious, she got toasted by the Royal Navy. Whether she sunk alone or was scuttled does not change that fact. Dr. Loosmark 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I also looked it over, and I don't think it's particularly misleading. If survivors stated they scuttled the ship, then saying cause of her loss is uncertain is fine. Skinny87 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning what the survivors said, and neither do I oppose that info being in the article. It should be in the article. What I am saying is that the cause of her loss was not scuttling but the beating she got which made the scuttling necessary. Many other ships capital ships were scuttled: Lexington, Akagi, Hiei etc but the cause of the loss is not described as scuttling even if they were scuttled. What rendered the scuttling necessary is the ultimate cause of the loss. Dr. Loosmark  19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't so much the scope of the class article, it instead belongs in Bismarck's individual article, I was merely trying to convey the fact that there is some disagreement over the direct cause of her sinking (hence the reason I wrote "exact cause of her loss," not "the proximate cause," which I think everyone would agree was the hammering KGV and Rodney inflicted. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the British destroyed the ship; there is, however, significant debate over who administered the coup de grace. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stockman
Thanks for the clarification and move completion (and everything else you do). --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, and keep up the good work yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election to Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of you achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I heard about this and came here directly to congratulate you. Sorry I forgot to cast my vote, but what a good outcome regardless! Tony   (talk)  04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony! And no worries on missing the vote :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Loreley
Page 71 of Corbett's Naval Operations mentions her as being a guard ship at Constantinople, she was the station yacht their and was given or sold to the ottomans in 1918. There is a picture of her at wikipedia commons i believe.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As with most minor German warvessels its difficult to get details of her service from english sources, but this german source mentions her as being part of the division allong with Goeben and Dresden in 1913. []. She is in Groner, but no details of her service are given other than that she served abroad and was transfered to turkey after being striken on 2 Nov 1918. Brassey's lists her on Mediterranian in 1897 with several school ships. The article as it stands now doesnt include Dresden as a member of the squadron in 1913 something that should be added i think.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Kronprinz (1914)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question for you
Would you look into the question at Talk:USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN-76) and explain your edit. Thanks. -- 签名 sig  at  17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381
I never remembered to really thank you for your stellar work in reviewing and improving my article Arado Ar E.381. Now is the time to do that.

Beyond that, I need you to look up the sources concerning the article and clear up the template. I might get this article from A-class. WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 03:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't really have the time to spend on the article; I've got to write a 20-30 page paper in the next 6 or so weeks. What spare time I do have is already spoken for. Something you might consider is that some articles just won't make it past GA, as the sources just aren't there. Perhaps improving the article on a less obscure aircraft would be a better option at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
First, congrats on your lead coordinatorship (is that a word?).

Second, I'm curious about this move, and a few others like it. Can you link me to the specific discussion referenced? I checked the archives a bit bit couldn't find it. The reason I ask is because it's messing up sclass a bit with a redirect that I can't seem to bypass.  bahamut0013  words deeds 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Butting in, it was WT:NCSHIP. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but my vote is that we put a hyphen in the title if we'd use a hyphen in the text.  I'm getting the sense that people are most likely to leave the hyphen out in text when there's a nearby link to a page title that doesn't have the hyphen.  Also, I and a lot of others bought the idea that it made sense not to use the full formatting on page titles since headlines and book titles also often skip italics and hyphens, but the recent arguments that changed WP:TITLE to say that we should use italics when we'd use italics in the text suggest to me that the same is now true for hyphens. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bahamut. I think I was a bit pre-mature in moving the pages, though I think that's where we'll end up eventually. As long as the redirects work, I think we're fine in the short term - someone more versed in coding will have to modify the templates to accept the hyphen. Do we know who wrote sclass? Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it Bellhalla? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it looks like it was J Clear, who appears to still be active. Bellhalla added three parameters later on. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

essay on Eastern Front terminology
Rather than have this come up periodically every now and then, and also edit warring because of a lack of guideline, I wrote this (based on my understanding of the discussions referenced on page): WikiProject Military history/Nomenclature, WWII Eastern Front - Great Patriotic War

Maybe you already have something like this. If not, and if you want it, maybe it can be integrated somewhere into your scheme of pages. If you don't want it, you can delete it I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Trojan War
Hey man, I saw that you were the lead coordinator of the Military History Project so I have a question to ask you if you don't mind. Does the Trojan War fall under our Project's Jurisdiction? Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TPS'ing I believe it does; see #8 along with accompanying note 4. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Ed; it's a bit hazy given the debate over the historicity of the war, (though I think there is general agreement that it had some basis on a conflict) but I still think it's within our scope. Parsecboy (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With that said, would a warbox be elligble to add to the article?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it'd be necessary, the Trojan War template includes most of what we could really put into the infobox anyway, so it'd be redundant. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you might find an earlier coordinator's input on this question interesting:. More recently, Valkyrie has been arguing repeatedly that an infobox is an absolute necessity, even though most editors on the page think a "warbox" doesn't help the article. Such obsessive behavior doesn't help Wikipedia, in my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Kirill's point, though I would argue that it is within the project's scope. That's not to say that the article needs a standard war infobox. Our knowledge of the war is derived almost entirely from Homer, who isn't exactly a reliable source, by any definition of the term. As such, an infobox couldn't contain any information that isn't already in the Trojan War template at the top of the page. As Kirill states, there's no rule requiring all articles within the project's scope have an infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, my new proposal was that the Warbox be put in the article section labeled 9 Years of War, as it would make sense to put in the section that actually concerns the Military part of the Article. Would you not agree that it fits well there?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would still be redundant, as there isn't much factual information we could put in it. And the point of an infobox is to provide the reader with a quick summary of the article at the start, not of specific sections in the body. Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I guess once corrupt, always corrupt.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SMS Zrinyi
Hey Parsec, could you take a look at SMS Zrinyi? I'd like to get her to A class, and would like your input on whther or not to place her on the queue. Also, could you help out on both Ersatz Monarch class battleship, Habsburg class battleship or Erzherzog akrl class battleship. One of these will ahve to get to FA for an FT to be legible, so I'd like some pointers on how to write about projects that never left the drawing board/projects that never did anything after they left the drawing baord. Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another TPS reply, hope you don't mind Parsec. I'd take a look at some of the never-built articles written by Parsec. You could also glance at Design B-65 cruiser and Design 1047 battlecruiser. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, Ed. I haven't yet taken any articles on never built or not particularly active ships to FAC, so I don't have much advice on that specifically. In my situation, there are enough German dreadnought and WWII ship articles to make the 50%, so I don't have to worry about the older, less active ships. The class articles will be less of a problem, because their service history sections should be a shorter summary. One problem is Navweaps; Sturm and I have come to the conclusion that people aren't going to accept it at FAC and we've stopped using it. I'm not removing it from articles that have already passed FAC, but I'm not going to add an unnecessary headache for myself in future FACs. You should probably consider the same course of action. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was assuming you'd be partially experienced per the Mecklenburg class (did I get it right, it's the last WWI German BC's), but I'll go ping Tom. Any alternate cites for navweaps? Buggie111 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain Conway's 1906 has a table with the medium and large caliber Austrian guns in it. I'm at work at the moment, so I can't confirm right now. And almost on the BCs, it was the Mackensen class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I could've sworn Conway's had the gun info for the Austro-Hungarians, but turns out it doesn't. Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen
It doesn't matter if the topic at hand is a German one, the name of the island is spelled Spitsbergen. British authors have repeatedly used the incorrect spelling Spitzbergen, which, as I said in reverting your edit for the second time, shouldn't be used outside the German language. It was discovered by the Dutch and given a Dutch name, so there is absolutely no reason to use the German spelling in the English language. Oh, and the Etymology section on the Spitsbergen page was written by several British editors who have absolutely no knowledge whatever on the subject, and should be ignored. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter one iota who discovered the island. Nor do I care what the etymology section on a Wikipedia article states; I didn't consult it in the slightest. The source I was using for the information specifically uses the "z" spelling, which is appropriate for a German topic. You said you reverted my edit a second time; I see that was done via a different account. Are you openly admitting to socking? Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser image
Hey Parsec, could you use this image? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, two more: /  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RM admin review
Another one of my closings has been complained about and an ANI was filed. Although I did not mention you by name, I did quote from, and link to, your review of my other challenged closing. Here is the ANI. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg
If we know that (WP:V) that no independent press journalist were allowed on the Royal Navy ships, then I would quite likely agree that File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg is Crown Copyright material. I did a search and this popped up: "The independent professional press photographer was ... barred from ships from the ships of the Royal Navy, ..." (p. 140, First World War photographers by Jane Carmichael [1989].) So, the photograph was indeed taken by one of the ship's crew. However, what follows perked my curiosity... "The amateur's circumstances varied; he might find his work sought after for publication in the early months on the Western Front, or if he was present during a naval action, or serving in Mesopotamia, but otherwise he might be forbidden to use his camera altogether or expected to confine himself to purely personal usage of it."

For Crown Copyrights to be awarded, it must be "a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties." (Article 163 [1] of UK Copyright law 1988). I am uncertain if that means photography would be considered "purely personal usage" and hence "not in the course of his duties" (in that case, should we discard Surgeon Oakes's photographs?), or if conscripts/drafted men qualify as an "officer or servant" (Surgeon would be an officer)... Sorry, I am uncertain about this; perhaps we should bring it up at a more wider board for further analysis. If it is determined that a conscripted/drafted sailor is considered a servant of the Crown and that taking photographs is considered "in the course of his duties", then there would be no issues with File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg as Crown Copyright material. There might also be certain other implications that might result from such discussion.

Still one learns something new everyday; thank you Parsecboy for bringing that point (no "embedded journalist" on Royal Navy ships) up. Sorry for the late reply, I rarely visit FACs I have vetted okay. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I've often wondered about that with regards to American service member photos as well. For a long time I operated under the logic you suggest for British photos, specifically, if the service member didn't take it as part of his official duties (i.e., a PAO photographer), then it doesn't qualify as PD. To put it perhaps a little more lightly, I don't recall signing anything when I enlisted that stated any photo I ever took while in the military was automatically PD. For example, I released this photo I took in Iraq as PD, but not because I was in the military when I took it. However, it didn't seem to me that anyone else shared my interpretation of the law, so I stopped using it.


 * Take the Midway photo I mentioned at the FAC - SDBs had a crew of two (pilot and gunner), and there was no room for a cameraman. Presumably, the gunner turned around and snapped the photo. Does the fact that he was serving in his official position as a gunner in the US Navy at the time he took the photo automatically make it PD? I wouldn't think so, according to my understanding of the law.


 * The real question is where we should bring this up for discussion. The first thing I'd think is on Commons, but I don't know that we'd get very many responses. I do think this needs to be clarified though. Oh, and no worries on taking a while to respond, it had fallen to the back of my mind as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A little WP:TPS here. If the photo was indeed taken by H. T. Day, and I can't see why he would not have, then it's difficult to see how he could have taken the photograph "in the course of his duties", as he was a seventeen year-old midshipman in New Zealand at the time.  I can tell you from reading a number of Midshipmen's accounts from the Battle Cruiser Fleet on 31 May, 1916, that they were kept very busy during the battle, and it's pretty incredible that he would have been given leave to take photos during the battle, which suggests that he pulled out his box Brownie or whatever on the sly.  FWIW.  --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Simon is correct. I know that I, much like Parsec, took a ton of photos while I was on active duty that were not official photos. The real question, as far as I'm concerned, is what status those type of photos have with the IWM. They're obviously not Crown Copyright, per se, but what exact status do they have? Are all photos donated to IWM given Crown Copyright status by the act of donation or do they retain the original author's copyright? I used to think that all photos donated or purchased to the Library of Congress automatically became PD, but this is not so, so I'm not sure what to think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the NH&HC considers all photos donated to them as PD Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Midway photograph, it could have been a gun-camera; although very likely it was the tail-gunner as you say. However, it seems that Commons (and Wikipedia) regards anything a US serviceman does in uniform as "in the course of duty".  See Commons:Deletion requests/File:My Lai massacre.jpg.  A document pointed out in that discussion, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA392914&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, states that the US government has a "shop right" to anything a serviceman does while on duty (akin to how companies own any intellectual property an employee might have created while in the office or using company equipment).
 * With regards to UK Crown Copyrights, I see two points to think about: the "officer or servant of the Crown", and the "in the course of his duties". If I am not wrong, "servant of the Crown" carries a particular meaning that I am not certain applies to conscripts, drafts, and the low rank grunts.  Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the angle's not right for a gun camera (note the wing in the bottom right corner). I didn't know about the US Government having a "shop right" over on-duty photos. I would imagine they don't apply to photos taken while off duty, don't you think? (mainly what I'm thinking is that I actually did hold the copyright to the photo I linked to above, so I could release it as PD)
 * So the question is whether the UK has a "shop right" as well. Simon noted that H. T. Day was a midshipman at the time, which is a commissioned officer in the Royal Navy, so that appears to address the second consideration. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically Day was a "subordinate officer" of the Royal Navy, not a commissioned officer. He ranked with but after Army Sergeant Majors.  I think someone ought to contact the I.W.M. for further clarification.--Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The first question directed to IWM should be "Was Day the photographer?" That said, Simon, how do you know H. T. Day was "a seventeen year-old midshipman in New Zealand at the time"?  I did not manage to find any information on him (his name is too common to register hits on Google...).  Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got copies of a number of wartime Navy Lists, which list the officers assigned to each ship. [Horace Trelawny] Day was appointed to the New Zealand on 25 October, 1914.  His service records are online at The National Archives, and his date of birth is given as 14 June, 1898. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is pretty neat. Okay, if the IWM clarifies that Day took the photograph and they regard it as under Crown Copyrights, I think there should be no issue with that photograph then.  Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Landships links
There are a host of links to landships.freeservers.com in the WW1 related pages. This is a heads up to tell the Military History project that Landships will vanish in the next few weeks. However, the news is not all bad - there is a replacement site being worked on www.landships.info (aka Landships II). About 60% of the Landships articles are converted and each article has a citation URL at the end of the article text - please use this to link to the articles. Where articles are on Landships but haven't been converted yet a message to me or a post to the Landships Forum (http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=63528&p=1) will get them jumped up the queue. Some of the Landships articles have been expanded and reorganised so the original links may not reflect the intent of the Wikipedia article.

Regards,

Charlie

CharlieBris (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know, I'll post this over to the relevant MILHIST talk pages. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
This is in regards to this poaching -MBK004 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the pocket battleships?
Query: Why aren't the pocket battleships of the Deutschland class listed on OMT? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 05:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They aren't battleships in any way - the term "pocket battleship" was invented by the press. The Germans classified them as "armored ships" initially and later as heavy cruisers. Just about every reputable naval historian uses one of the two. From a purely technical standpoint, they didn't have much armor and had too few and too small main battery guns to be considered a battleship or even a battlecruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

50 page thesis
did you? id love to have a read!Sandpiper (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Parsec, thanks for serving our country and making the rest of us proud – Happy Veteran's Day! Don't forget to get dinner at Applebee's (or other places) with your wife. :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed :) I'm planning on going to lunch at Applebee's with my brother (my wife is working during the day and I work tonight, and he was free for lunch). There's a retired Major who runs a VA program at OSU, and he always sends out emails with the lists of places doing things for veterans on Veterans Day. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Hope you had a fabulous time. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bismarck
Hi Nate, it's been a while. I can't agree with your comments in your last edit summary but won't revert as you're admin. Would be grateful if you'd take this to Talk, as the other edit does take sides. FWIW, I firmly believe that Bismarck did indeed sink Hood but the evidence from the dedicated websites cannot rule out Hood self-destructing during thr battle - hence my reluctant choice of wording (which is also on Denmark Strair article, IIRC). Well done, though, on spotting the typo in my edit summary that left the "n" out of "withdrawn". Regards, bigpad (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Bigpad. First, that I'm an admin doesn't make my edits more valid than anyone else's. But on to the point: what sources claim that Hood self-destructed without any relation to combat with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen? Bill Juren's excellent examination in Warship International (it can be found online here) doesn't even mention the possibility, nor does anything I've ever read from Antony Preston on the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey Parsec, what would you think of this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan]


 * It's fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ed, did you notice I put the page numbers from Campbell re:Canada at Jutland on the FAC page? What's going on with the FAC? It hasn't seen any activity in the past week or so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, and I added the Campbell information in the article before. No one's offered a review lately -- I'm going to be leaving messages at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS tonight, when I'm back.  Allanon  ♠The Dark Druid♠ 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Allanon? I haven't seen that account in a while... Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was on a public computer. Figured I should be safe and use that account for the first time in ... (checks contribs) ... 18 days short of a year. :P Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear ya. The only public computers I ever use are the ones at OSU, and they have pretty solid security on them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand/archive2
Hey Parsec, can you help out a bit with this? I'm strapped for time and won't be able to get to this FAC for a few days. I've got most of it done but there are two new reviews that I need help fixing. All the best,-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would, but I have no time for much Wiki stuff either - I've made all of about 30 edits this month. Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Email Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Ping
Right back at you (and Happy Thanksgiving) :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Anti-Soviet bias
An arbitration application has been accepted by the arbitration committee concerning POV-bias at military history project Arbitration/Requests/Case. I thought you might be interested, as the initiating party (Communicat) has alleged "systematic violation NPOV/content at the military history project" and has previously crossed pens with you. I was going to post it on the Project board, but thought that might seem alarmist. --Habap (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. ''Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.''

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HMS Pomone
Parsec, Thanks for adding that bit about Lord Curzon's tour to the article. I think the only thing about your Kronprinz article is the use of fleet advance, which seems very awkward to me. Fleet sortie just doesn't have all the other overtones that I associate with the former phrase.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think the reason Staff uses the phrase is because that's the translation of the German Flottenvorstoss - "fleet advance" (see this for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, I removed them all. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Markgraf
Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

517th
Parsecboy, didn't know you had a connection to the 517th. I've met a few in DC the last few years and am thinking about heading down to Atlanta for the 517th's reunion this summer. --Habap (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my wife's grandfather (who passed away in September) was in the unit from training at Toccoa through the end of the war. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My condolences to her family. Can I ask the trooper's name? I'm sure he's in the assembly area now.... --Habap (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, he really was a great man. His name was Marvin Miller - if I remember correctly he was an infantryman assigned to HHC, 1st BN. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a comment in a Move Page request
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.

Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc...

Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Konig, etc
Hello I notice you reverted the changes I made here (which is fair enough; I didn’t know where to raise it as a discussion, before making the edits). Can you tell me where the FAC discussion is, so I can read it? And where is a good place to raise it as a discussion issue? I have to say the format used looks “clunky” to me; we wouldn’t see that format in a source, we would see something like 'the ship's name was Konig, meaning "King", in German' or something similar. Take Foudroyant for instance ( I can’t off-hand think of a German example); the name means thunderbolt, but we would never refer to her as the French ship Thunderbolt, would we?. Is this going to become the standard format for ship names? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Xyl. I thought it was at the SMS Konig FAC, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I know it was discussed somewhere during one of my more recent battleship FACs, but I can't find which one. I know User:Dank was the one who came up with that solution, so it might be wise to ask him if he remembers where it is. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This Week's edition
Why did you get SOLE credit for the AH GTC? It never even mentioned me or Buggie who did most of the work......(I'm not mad, just confused...)-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I wasn't even listed officially as a nominator. Do you know who put the Signpost notices together? Maybe you can ask them to fix it (or just be bold and do it yourself? I don't know what the rules are for the Signpost). What might have happened was they saw all of the articles starting with "SMS" and assumed I had done them but didn't check. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't complain about it. What really matters is that both you and I know who did what. Thanks for you work on it :)-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 22:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts also. I'll go ping them if WS hasn't already. Buggie111 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Kaiserin
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

4:30
Either you're up ridiculously early or ridiculously late. In either case, I'm going to bed. Good luck with the FTC. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I get to open the store at 5:00, hence my awake-being. And this is after working til 9:00 last night, which was super fun. Thanks Ed :)Parsecboy (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boy, that sounds exciting. Have fun, ya old fart. I've got work in roughly seven hours... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, serving coffees in Easton on Christmas Eve sounds like a ton of fun :) Good luck to you as well. Parsecboy (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Userify request
I was hoping you could restore the deleted content of Grapple (Transformers) to my user space so I could work on the article. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - I've restored the material here. I'd advise you to make sure the new article addresses the concerns of those who wanted to delete the article during the AFD, especially the sourcing issue. Best of luck. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Shiny new link
When I mentioned "dreadnoughts, were to trail behind" in your recent ACR, I didn't have a link to explain that one ... now I do. I see you're sharing the suffering of the little baby Jesus, opening the store at 5 a.m. ... tis the season for that kind of crap. Happy Holidays. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the good thing was the store was closed on Christmas and I had yesterday off. Friday was a bit insane though - we did about as much in sales in the 8 hours I worked as we do on a normally-busy 16-hour day. The link makes sense, thanks for pointing that out to me. I hope your Christmas was good, and have a happy New Year! Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Salamis
This might allow you to expand Greek battleship Salamis to A or FA... can you find it in a library near you? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And this may help your dissertation. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed, the closest copy is in the University of Cincinnati, which is part of O-Link, so I can easily get that through ILL. I'm so close to finishing Germany though, so I'm going to hold off on that until I'm done.
 * I actually have Brook's book, but I think he's off the mark. It seems quite clear that the Argo clock was superior to Dreyer (HMS Queen Mary had some of the best shooting in either fleet until she was destroyed, and she was one of a handful of Argo-equipped vessels), but even still, effective and frequent long-range gunnery training was the key, not necessarily the director systems. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "dissertation" usually (but not always) refers to PhD work, which reminds me ... are any of the regulars headed into history grad school? I'll be happy to spend a little more time with anyone who's running the gantlet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the goal, anyway. I've applied for next year and should hopefully hear in the spring sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I don't encourage people to go ... everyone in academia is discouraged by academia ... but then, that can make a nice little life, commiserating about academia and studying the stuff you love.  One failing of academicians is their love of credentials, so aim for well-respected departments and schools. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lineage between German Field Armies of WWI & WWII
Sorry to borther you is their any direct lineage between units of world war one and world war two?. Because as i'm looking at their pages like 1st Army (Germany) has section in both world war. But their are separate page on 1st infantry Division like 1st Division (German Empire) and 1st Infantry Division (Germany) can someone give me some info on this.--71.213.85.130 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything on this specifically, my area of knowledge is on the German navies, not armies. You might consider asking at the talk page of the Military History project, which can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Radetzky
Well considering that you promoted this to GA, I was wondering that with the addition of loads of info from Sokol, is she ready for an ACR? All the best and happy new year,-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So....may I have your approval to begin an ACR or do you think that more attention is required? (Sorry if I appear to be "nagging") All the best,-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 20:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I had replied to this but apparently I got distracted and forgot :) But sure, go ahead. I'll try to help out where I can - I should have more free time now that the holidays are over and work will be back to normal. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS König Albert
The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Some help
At the list of wars 1500-1799 article, specifically the 1700-1799 section, there is text at the top of the section. I tried removing it, but it's visible in the edit page. What happened? B-Machine (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Somehow a bit of the template was duplicated, but the text didn't have a "|" in front, which caused it to come out of the template. I fixed it though. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. B-Machine (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SMS Kaiserin
I've begun the GA Review on that article, just to let you know ;)-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Prinzregent Luitpold
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)