User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 30



LNN
Hello, I'm writing in regards to your comment here. First off, do you know what "lnn" is? If so, a simple explanation (as was requested) would be quite helpful. Second, if redirecting "lnn" to "LNN" is so detrimental, why didn't you just undo it? (you are an admin, right?) Anything you can contribute here to clear this up would be appreciated. Thanks -  thewolfchild   01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, I note that you have actively edited since I posted my question here. I will assume that perhaps you didn't notice, and therefore will ask again for you assistance. Thank you. -  thewolfchild  01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I did not see this earlier. I much prefer the old message notice system, since the new "you have new messages" doesn't tell you how many you should be looking for. In any case, no, I don't know what "lnn" stands for, but you might consider asking User:Mzajac, who created the redirect way back in 2007, and is still active. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll give that a try. In the meantime, there are a couple of things that are a little confusing to me. First, you had commented that my change of the redirect affected 200 pages, yet the link you provided only lists two. Second, I was under the impression that you took issue with that edit, but in your comment here (at the bottom), you seem supportive of it. Am I mis-reading something(s)? ... -  thewolfchild   18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The redirects have all been fixed (see for instance here). That's what I was objecting to&mdash;you were making more work for others to clean up and did not seem to understand the need to fix the problem your edit created. As for my comment on the Posen FAC, I was neither supporting nor objecting to the re-targeting, simply explaining why the need to fix the lnn link hadn't been identified until Ian saw it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, sorry if my edit "created work", but it looks like work that needed to be done anyway, as you "explained to Ian". Mind you, I didn't create that re-direct in the first place. I just tried fixing it. As did Ketiltrout before me. For some reason, Br'er Rabbit went and undid that, but I can't ask him because it appears he has been banned for like... ever. So, like you said, hopefully Mzajac can shed some light on this. -  thewolfchild   20:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't work that needed to be done. Everything was hunky dory until you changed redirect. And "fixed" is a subjective way to describe it; presumably there is a reason Mzajac created it in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Presumably" ? -  thewolfchild   18:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, presumably, because I cannot read Mzajac's mind. I can only assume that s/he had a good reason to create the redirect. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's where you and I will have to agree to disagree, as I'd rather not "assume" anything. -  thewolfchild   00:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be better for you to WP:AGF. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not even gonna touch that one. Best we end this. Bye. -  thewolfchild   06:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leipzig-class cruiser
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leipzig-class cruiser 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. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your List of battlecruisers is now a featured list in de:Wiki too
Hello Parsecboy,

as you maybe know I translated your featured List of battlecruisers into German language a while ago and have nominated it for becoming a featured list on its own two weeks ago. Today it was finally awarded with 8 Pro and 0 Contra. The article saw a few changes in its structure and streamlining in the tables which are now sortable but in its essential core and which got it the most praises, the introduction and the high number of references it is still your article. So, in my opinion it is for a great part your Award. Thank you for the great article and the answers to the questions I had during the translation. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Bomzibar. I hadn't been following its progress on de.wiki, but I'm glad to know how it ended up! Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for administrator input
I know it's not a military topic, but I've seen your work on military article and knew you were an administrator, and so hoped you might be able to weigh in. The article about Wajam, a browser add-on that shares user search information with friends and generates pop-up ads, is the source of some edit "scuffles." I've added a section with four or five sources that discusses why Wajam can be a security threat, and how it is often installed without a user even realizing that it's there. This is well-documented. Meanwhile, the page is policed by the company; IP users from Montreal (where Wajam was created) keep reverting edits that discuss the security concerns. Now there's a brand-new user whose only contribution so far has been to delete that controversy section. I asked another admin (Tom harrison) about it, but he's not on all that often. I don't want to run afoul of the 3-revert rule, but this sock-puppetry is a bit ridiculous, and smacks of NPOV violations. I'd appreciate some outside input. Thanks! Sacxpert (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems rather obvious that these IPs are connected with the company. I left a couple of comments on the talk page and warned the IP who has been talking with you about his/her apparent conflict of interest. I seriously doubt that will achieve anything, but I can always start blocking the IPs. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible GA Nomination
I was planning on nominating one of your Greek maritime articles, the Greek destroyer Lonchi. Needless to say, you may assist in the review if you wish to do so. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine. I'll help out with it where I can. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dresden-class cruiser
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dresden-class cruiser 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Marceau
I'm finally finished with Marceau. Check it over and make whatever changes are necessary. Double-check the bit in the main body about going into reserve against Feron as I think that some other editor attempted to clean it up and I can't find my copy of Feron. Nominate it whenever you're ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops
I have no idea how this happened - it was entirely unintentional, and I'm sorry about it. I can't even use editing by phone/tablet as an excuse given that I'm on my PC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, I figured it was accidental. Weird stuff happens sometimes, doesn't it? As a side note, I actually had to remove rollback from my mobile account because I kept accidentally rolling back valid edits. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571990830 your edit] to Leipzig-class cruiser may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Improper German Battleship edits
Hello Parsecboy I would like to apologize for being too eager to condense refs - I was under the impression that horizontal format was preferred to vertical due to space considerations; as you quite obviously possess more knowledge about editing than my own (admittedly-meager!) knowledge affords, I must stand corrected. I was under the impression that the more accurate the information in a reference, the better, and was surprised to find that this is apparently not the case, that the OCLC # & the information provided there for the "others=" parameter is not desired, and also that one shouldn't use "authorlink=" for someone as prominent as Friedman - my reasoning in all these cases was based on my long-ago academic experience with term-paper bibliographies, which apparently doesn't apply here; I promise to gain a clearer understanding of the citation templates' guidelines rather than simply parsing them for the information I immediately needed as has been my wont. I also see where I bollixed the gun calibers on several of these articles while thinking I was correcting a minor mistake in grammar (an obvious "rush to judgement" after finding one such instance in an article - I believe on one of the pre-dreadnought classes - and the improvident result of not doing due-diligence in carefully proof-reading what I was changing in articles on succeeding classes, on the mistaken assumption that each efn had been c/p'd - as if I hadn't already learned what granpappy meant w/ that hoary ol' saw about "assume", dadgummit!) and so again I apologize for my mistake, and will strive not to make it again. I did learn something else pretty cool when I noticed how you only fully identify Annapolis for the first ref that includes it, and that once a publishing location's been so identified, it's ok to parse further usage of the same location to simply the city name; I'll remember that, too. All in all, I now believe that I've been following a too-strict interpretation of the citation templates and a too-encyclopedic approach to crafting refs, and am chagrined that I've caused you a good deal of unneccessary work in straightening out my follies - I'll certainly strive to do better in the future! Hope you and yours have a grand day, and thanks again for showing a novice the better path! Tech77 (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem at all - things here are just about impossible to break permanently (even deleting an entire page can be undone fairly easily). The actual formatting of the reference code, whether vertical or horizontal doesn't matter, since it displays to the reader all the same. It's just easier to read expanded than all jammed together (or at least I think so). The general rule of thumb is to leave an article's reference style in whatever format the author chose to use, unless there's a good reason to change it. I didn't see you add the authorlink to Friedman (which is part of the reason I prefer to keep them expanded, since it's easier to see what fields are being used and so forth) - I'll put those back in, since we do usually link to authors. As for the "others=" parameter, you don't typically need to include people like illustrators in the citation (or at least we don't in the field of history), and for Groener specifically, Jung and Maass are editors, so you can use the "editor1-last=" field and so forth. Again, no worries, it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs around here :) And you have a great day as well! Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tirpitz
Hello You just reverted the changes I was making to the Tirpitz article; I've opened a section on the talk page there, as I think it would improve the lay-out. Currently there is a single large section on Tirpitz's activities over an 18 month period, followed by a series of sections on the British attempts to nobble her. It seems a bit unbalanced in the TOC. Anyway, your comments would be appreciated, Xyl 54 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

RobDuch
You've done more US battleship articles than I have, but I just noticed that has been going to town adding in all sorts of extra detail into the infoboxes that is best left to the main body. I've just contacted him about his changes to the Pennsy-class article, which is the first one that he's changed that I had watched and asked him to move all of his extra material into the main body. I dunno if we're gonna get any cooperation out of him, but I'd certainly prefer to avoid edit warring with him over bulking up the infoboxes so much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of putting those types of details in prose form, as a simple table doesn't tell you why or how... the problem is how to explain that to others. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that for many ships, their characteristics changed several times over the course of their careers, which would require an even lengthier infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HRS books
Hi, have the books arrived yet? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, last week in fact. I've been a bit busy in real life so I haven't been on here much lately - just finishing up grading the first round of exams. Many thanks again for sending them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So have you had a chance to look at them yet? Are they useful to you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a ton of time to do much here lately - the semester is ramping up again. But from the skimming I've done, yes, they should be very useful to me. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  majestic battleships

Thank you for quality articles and lists on battleships, especially Seiner Majestät Schiff Friedrich der Große, knowing "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 254th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Gerda. How's this place treating you lately? I've been a bit busy the past few weeks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dresden-class cruiser/GA1
Just a reminder that this was reviewed over two weeks ago, and is still awaiting a response. Hope you can post something there soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been a bit busy over the past couple of weeks, and had lost track of the review. Thanks for giving me a poke - I should have time to get to it tomorrow or Friday by the latest. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dresden-class cruiser
The article Dresden-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dresden-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A note
During the past week a copy-editor looked at the Mahan-class destroyer article; aside from cleaning up the prose nothing unusual was mentioned. This followed a B-class assessment request, which was successful. Your suggestions worked out well. Thank you. In your opinion, what would be the preferable next step: a Peer Review or an A-class assessment request? Pendright (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad they were of some help. Usually, the route I take with articles is B-class review, then Good Article review, then A-class (since most people see A-class as being a step above GA). I've only done a peer review a couple of times - sometimes they can be pretty helpful, but then other times it can be hard to get many opinions. I suppose I'd suggest going to GA first, since there you'll work with only one reviewer, who can help iron out any MOS related issues if there are any - in general, a GA reviewer will be less specialized in the content and more in formatting and so forth. You'll get reviewers who are more familiar with the content at the A-class review, since it's run through the Military History project. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The distinction you make between the types of reviews is very informative.  Much obliged! Pendright (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Emden (1908)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Emden (1908) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Emden (1908)
The article SMS Emden (1908) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Emden (1908) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

SMS Karlsruhe (1916)
Why remove the tag "for other uses", as long as there are two other German cruisers with the same name? Carsten R D


 * The purpose of hatnotes is to disambiguate titles for readers, not to serve as a "see also" message. Hatnotes are really only necessary in situations where the article has an ambiguous title - Karlsruhe, for instance, needs a hatnote, because there are many other things called "Karlsruhe", and a reader might type in "Karlsruhe" and be looking for any one of them. Readers are only going to get to SMS Karlsruhe (1916) by either typing in the exact title (in which case they got what they were looking for), or by internal links from another article (ditto).
 * On the other hand, a hatnote is necessary for the SMS Karlsruhe article, since there is another article that one could reasonably search for by typing "SMS Karlsruhe" into the search bar. Does that make sense? Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any better suggestions as to separate the three German cruisers bearing the name Karlsruhe, from 1912, 1916 and 1927; SMS Karlsruhe (1912), SMS Karlsruhe (1916) and GERMAN CRUISER Karlsruhe? Carsten R D
 * Well, they are separated, given that they have sufficiently unambiguous names (and hatnotes where necessary). Again, if you want to make readers aware that there were other cruisers named Karlsruhe, that belongs in a "See also" section. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Vizeadmiral Bernhard Rösing
Hi, do you happen to have any info on Vizeadmiral Bernhard Rösing? He was the commander of SMS Kronprintz from November 1916 to August 1918. He also was the father of the U-Boat commander and later Konteradmiral Hans-Rudolf Rösing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no, I haven't come across his name in any of the sources I have at my disposal, sorry. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking. I created a stub Bernhard Rösing. If you come accross some more info please add. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll keep my eyes out for anything to include. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Bussard
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Bussard 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 22:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Falke 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 22:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Bussard
The article SMS Bussard you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:SMS Bussard for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 16:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects
Hi, you participated in Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29, some of which I have relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Help!
I’ve nominated Mahan-class destroyer for a Good article review. I now find I’ll be away from my computer for the next two weeks. Is there any way to postpone the review, should there be one, or is there a way to remove the article from nominations? Thanks! Pendright (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can just remove the template from the talk page and the bot should automatically remove it from the list of nominations. If you want to be sure, you could remove it manually there too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pendright (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Bussard
The article SMS Bussard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Bussard for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke
The article SMS Falke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:SMS Falke for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Falke
The article SMS Falke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Falke for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 22:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Condor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

SMS Condor and HRS
Will do. I owe another editor some input first though. Please be patient. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ob, no problem, I'm in no hurry. Take all the time you need - I wouldn't even have HRS to hassle you about my translation work if it wasn't for you ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Navy gun nomenclature
In case you were wondering: I changed the notes saying that 'SK' in Imperial German Navy gun nomenclature stands for Schnellfeuerkanone to Schnelladekanone as that is the correct term. Here two snippets as references. Regards, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * I don't know that that's correct. Axel Grießmer's book on the dreadnought battleships (it's cited in the Bayern-class battleship article as I recall) says it's schnellfeuer not schnellade, and did you see that in your second example it also has schnellfeuerkanonen on the snippet? I think this warrants more investigation before we decide one way or the other. Unfortunately, I'm traveling and won't have access to my library until Saturday at the earliest. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Grießmer is an authority in this case. But if you check Reichs-Marine-Amt and Schnellade-Kanone (with the dash), you will get numerous manuals on these guns. Bon voyage, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this book from 1898 calls them Schnellade-Kanone, and given that it's a contemporary publication, that seems fairly convincing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. In Erich Gröner, Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, J.F. lehmanns, 1966, p. 17: SK=Schnellfeuerkanonen. In Alex Grießmer, Die Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918, Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1996, p. 199: SK=Schnellfeuerkanonen.--Demostene119 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, see manuals listed here. Schnellfeuerkanone is more a type description, Schnelladekanone was the official naming. --Denniss (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY:Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Those manuals are primary sources.--Demostene119 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And if the primary sources, in a case where they would be expected to be using the official terminology, indicate that the secondary sources are using an erronious or colloquial terminology, we can, and should, refer to the primary source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * de:Erich Gröner use erronious or colloquial terminology, to say that you need the manual of the specific (30.5 cm SK L/50 gun for Derfflinger) type of cannon, not snippet and websites about others guns.--Demostene119 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Hildebrand's, Röhr's, & Steinmetz's Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe also defines SK as Schnellfeuerkanone. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I defines it as Schnelladekanone. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can change where appropriate if you would mind tell me a page number because I don't have Friedman's book. Also quick-firing should be replaced with quick-loading. Demostene119 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's page 130 in Friedman. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Hello, Parsec Boy,

The following articles of interest to you have been listed for deletion:


 * James Victor Gascoyne
 * Arthur William Hammond
 * James McKinley Hargreaves
 * William Drummond Matheson
 * [[John Russell (aviator)]

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Chevron with Oak Leaves

 * Thanks Tom, I appreciate it a lot! Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Condor
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Condor 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Condor
The article SMS Condor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Condor for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 17:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories
Hello,

The above article seems to have no pending issues; thus, it is a candidate for closing its A Class review. As one of the reviewers, could you please take appropriate action?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I had been meaning to finish up there but then got buried under a mountain of term papers and final exams to grade. I'll head over now. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Cormoran (1892), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Help!
There are six dead links in the Note section of the Mahan-class destroyer article. They include Dunlap, Drayton, Cummings, Reid, Flusser, and Lamson. To my knowledge, all links were in working order when I finished the article. Anyway, It’s all that separates the article from a GA.

I’ve compared the related Notes to the DANFS URLs and they all seem to check out, yet these links remain dead. Could you give me any step -by -step ideas on how to approach the problem? Many thanks! -- Pendright (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do is to go back to the individual pages and copy the URLs and paste them again. It eliminates the risk of a typo if you copy them manually. A few of them were missing the dash between the ship name and the number (like Flusserii instead of Flusser-ii). They should all be working fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bailing me out again. -- Pendright (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to do it! Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Cormoran (1892)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Cormoran (1892) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 23:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Great news
Mahan-class destroyer is now a GA, thanks to your willing and able support. Pendright (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You've put a lot of hard work into the article, and it shows. Do you have any plans for taking the article to A-class or FA? Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Taking it to A-class has crossed my mind, but I wonder if the article can stand this degree of scrutiny. What do you think? In any event, the article’s table would first need a bit of work. The GA reviewer said this:   “While the table in the "Ships in class" section is referenced just fine (no action required), I'd suggest adding another column to the table named "Source" and moving references to that column (only reference). That would reduce clutter since each field in every row is referenced to the same document. I'd also suggest prevent wrapping of dates and hull numbers in the table by adding nowrap=yes parameter to one field in each column (one with the longest text, of course).”  Adding a Source column does make sense, because it would eliminate a good number of notes.   But when it comes to the nowrap suggestion, I’m out in left field. If you agree with the suggestions, would you consider expanding the table to accommodate them; I’ll take care of the note changes.  Pendright (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's got legs for A-class. And sure, I can take a stab at the nowrap bit. I'm no great shakes at templates (mostly I just copy the code from other articles), but I'll see what I can do. I'm in the middle of overhauling SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm before I send it to WP:FA, so it'll probably have to wait until I'm done with that, if that's no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all and thanks. Merry Christmas!  Pendright (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you too! Enjoy your day tomorrow! Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Cormoran (1892)
The article SMS Cormoran (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Cormoran (1892) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bzuk! And to you as well! Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

SMS Blücher
Hi see Talk:SMS Blücher there is a red inked category for Category:Wikipedia featured topics Armored cruisers of Germany featured content. Would have tried to fix it myself but not sure what you guts are putting them in. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that Jim. I don't usually pay much attention to categories (seeing as I have all of 20-odd edits in the Category namespace over the past seven years or so), so it's not likely something I would have noticed. I just copied the structure for the Battleships of Germany topic, which I assume is correct. If not, I guess somebody will let me know :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

L 20 e α instead ofL 20 a
Hi, According to the German language Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_L_20_e_%CE%B1) and the German language book Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe 1915 Bis 1918 it's 20 e α, there is a L24 α on the other hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dominatormaximus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I saw your comment on the article talk page and replied there. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Linienschiff-Wörth.jpg
I can't find this image in the 1900 edition of Jane's. Can you clarify the source? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my memory is a little fuzzy on that. I don't know if I linked the wrong one or what, but I do remember finding that photo in a Jane's at the time. It's a shame this didn't come up a few months ago when I was in the Calgary Military Museum library - they had hard copies of most editions of Jane's and I could have checked more easily. I think the OSU has copies of some of the editions but they're all in the book depository and will take time to get. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shipyards
I think I tagged all of the worldwide shipyards that constructed battleships and battlecruisers, so feel free to add those if you're feeling especially ambitious tonight. Happy New Year! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm probably done for the night, so it'll have to wait until later if it's me who does it ;) Thanks, and happy New Year to you! Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Help!
The following tag was hung on the USS Mahan (DD-364) article today: This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (January 2014) I know you are busy, but would you have time to help me out here? Pendright (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, as I'm not seeing anything bad enough to warrant it. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:SMS Kaiser Friedrich III.PNG
Hi, regarding File:SMS Kaiser Friedrich III.PNG a link to the publication is included and no author appears on that page. If you are able to find an author somewhere else in the publication (I tried but couldn't) please let me know. Thanks. Cube00 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The journal provided was not the original publication. It's just one that shows that it was published before 1923 in the US, hence usable on en.wiki. Tracking down the original author is very difficult for these old photographs, but us not knowing who the photographer is is not the same thing as it having been published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Tirpitz_altafjord.jpg
Hi, you mentioned this photo was taken by a German photographer but the author still shows 'unknown', the website link doesn't work for me, could you please let me know the name of the photographer? Thanks Cube00 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The author is unknown, but only a German sailor could have gotten close enough to the ship to haven taken that photo. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Hoffmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Horta (Azores)
With all due respect and deference to your position as administrator, I do not believe that moving "Horta (Azores)" was done in the most honest way. The use of "Horta (Azores)" conforms to the suggested naming practice at WikiProject Portuguese Geography, and the use of "Horta, Azores" would be more acceptable when creating an article on the city of "Horta, Azores" rather then the municipality to which this article is devoted (a larger extra-territorial entity that encompasses more then the urbanized city). Horta is a municipality covering the island of Faial (to which this article refers), it is also specifically, a city encompassing the urbanized portions of the civil parishes of Conceição, Matriz and Angústias (that has no politico-administrative status in Portuguese law). At most a conversation on the merits of moving to this name should have been initiated, before an arbitrary move. I would request that the name be rolled-back and a conversation started. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Littorio class
Hi, thanks for your feedback about my addition to the Littorio-class article. Apologies for any inconsistency with existing references. This was because I focused on adding the new section late yesterday night, and I left any required cleanup tonight. For this I need to make sure that the same books are used both in the class' and the ship's articles, which I'm now reading thoroughly. No intention to create extra work to anyone. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I already cleaned it up and filled in a couple of empty boxes. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Some questions
Insofar as you know, is there any specific requirement or general custom that a destroyer article includes all of its commanding officers? If any case, would the information be integrated within its body, or could it just be listed in an infobox? If an infobox was used, would each commander listed require a reference source? Thank you. Pendright (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's absolutely no requirement that you list every captain the ship ever had, not least because most of them probably aren't notable. I'd try to work the notable ones into the text though, but it's not a requirement even then. You can see how I handled it in the USS Arizona (BB-39) or USS Saratoga (CV-3) articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Would I be out of line if I said the above is the prevailing view for including commanding officers in an article?   Pendright (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that there's some sort of guideline at WP:SHIPS that says that you shouldn't add COs in a list format, but I don't think that it goes any further than that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Pendright (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You reverted two changes
Your recent revert was meant to do one thing, but did two. You might want to do these manually. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm one to talk… I notice the edit in question added the "u" due to my spell checker! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I only reverted one change - the other change was just what was was included in the piped link. In any event, an edit is an edit, whether it's done through a revert or not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: German battleship Bismarck
This is a note to let the main editors of German battleship Bismarck know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 14, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 14, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bismarck was the first of two Bismarck-class battleships built for the German Kriegsmarine. Named after Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the primary force behind German unification in 1871, the ship was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned in August 1940. Bismarck and her sister ship GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and two of the largest built by any European power. Bismarck conducted only one offensive operation, in May 1941. The ship, along with the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Prinz Eugen, was to raid Allied shipping from North America to Great Britain. The two ships were detected several times off Scandinavia, and British naval units were deployed to block them. At the Battle of Denmark Strait, Bismarck destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood (51), the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) to retreat. After two days of relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy, she was attacked by torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (91) and her steering gear was rendered inoperable. In her final battle the following morning, Bismarck was neutralised by a sustained bombardment, was scuttled by her crew, and sank with heavy loss of life. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Soryu ACR
Don't forget to see if my responses to your comments work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
USS Mahan (DD-364) article has made the grade as a GA. Thank you for all your help along the way. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - congratulations on getting the article to GA. I haven't forgotten about playing around with the template by the way, just haven't gotten around to doing it yet :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like your thoughts on this
Can you have a look at this please. All of your articles make use of these templates as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nagato pics
Check out. It's got a bunch of high-quality scans from a Japanese book published back in '05. The photos are, of course, PD in Japan, but what's their US status, PD-1996? At least these would be sourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they should all be PD-US-1996 - they should make some nice additions to the article. Good find. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you explored that site, but they have an entire section on German ships with high-quality (2000px) images, e.g. . While many of the photos appear copyrighted, if you can match them to photos that we know are PD, you're allowed to upload them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Found the source book(s) for the Japanese images. All fundamentally tracing back to the Kure Maritime Museum so they're all OK copyright wise. Now, to start uploading them onto commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PitA to upload them, but done. Don't forget to support the nom if you're ready to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me Sturm - and yeah, that's why I don't generally bother uploading to Commons. It's so much easier to just upload them here with the plain form and let the bots handle the transfer.
 * Ed - I found a couple of nice upgrades (like this one) and even a new one since the uploader there was kind enough to leave the rest of the newspaper page in the photo, which included the publication and date! Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Beautiful! There's also a whole separate section for the German battleships ... go run wild ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw those, but unfortunately the pickings were slim as far as what I could transfer. I did find some nice desktop backgrounds though :D And actually, it looks like there will be some French options too - I'll get to those in a little bit. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a shame, but at least you got something out of it. Pity that there's no section for South America. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I just found five new photos of the early French pre-dreadnoughts to add. Too bad about your South American ships - I guess they're not important enough :P Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't make me come down there and smack you.
 * Actually, that's too much effort. Don't tempt me into paying your wife to smack you. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew you were all talk. And as for her, she knows where her bread is buttered - now, if you're planning on making her toaster waffles in the morning, you might have a shot. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll send some in the mail first thing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, none arrived. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll come in when you least expect it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So they were supposed to come yesterday morning, then? Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrea Doria-class battleship
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrea Doria-class battleship 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- 03:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited España-class battleship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeboard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Ägir and Odin
No worries! I plan to try and do at least some of the Siegfried-class ships as well. They're beautiful illustrations.

Of course, I shall have to decide whether I want to keep the borders or not: Ägir had some major blurriness issues on the right hand side, so I cropped it, but if I do all the others uncropped, I might have to revisit it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are really nice images, and he made quite a few of them. For what it's worth, probably all of the battleships will go to FAC once I get done overhauling their articles (the ship depicted in this one is at FAC right now). I don't know if that will impact your decision about which of the images you plan to work on, but I thought I should let you know my plans for the articles these images illustrate in case you were curious.
 * I was unsure about the border at first, but the more I look at it in the article, I think the border looks nice for Odin. Perhaps it's just that I'm used to seeing only black and white photos against black and white text and the extra color is a nice contrast. In any case, great work again, and thanks for your hard work! Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, FAC means top priority, I reckon. Any of them FAs already? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, none of them are FAs yet. After Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, SMS Mecklenburg and SMS Swaben are both through A-class reviews and will be next at FAC. SMS Wörth and SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II are both currently undergoing ACR and will follow after that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, one thing: Do watch your dates, and the distinction between a painting and a lithograph. For example, the one was labelled something like Painting Ägir in 1902 when it's a lithograph and the signature reads '99, putting it at least three years before that. Better to say "1902 lithograph of" which gets the terminus post quem without stating it as the year of the events (not quite the word, but you take the point) depicted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I wasn't checking the images themselves for a date - I'll keep that in mind. I must confess I didn't know the difference between the two (and had to check the Wiki article) - thanks for setting me straight on that as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, could you have a look with my conversation with Sca here? I don't want to misrepresent ye. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for letting me know about it. I've commented there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)



Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks excellent, thanks Adam. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I can't promise they'll get up to FP right away: We're a bit short of reviewers at the moment at FPC, and a lot of things are failing just for lack of quorum. If they fail, though, they can just be renominated in a couple weeks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, each article will take at least a month to get through FAC - it seems like things are going slowly there too. So no hurry at all :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bismarck
Congrats on the TFA! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed! :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiserin Augusta
I'd like it if it was possible to add File:Kaiserin Augusta verlässt Newyork, Chromo-Lithographie von C. Saltzmann 95, nr13 aus G. Wislicenus, Unsre Kriegsflotte.jpg to this article. Think it's doable? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's already the very nice Graf lithograph and the two hi-res photos from the New York visit, but the third photo isn't that great. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Strachwitz
I think I addressed what you asked for, may I kindly ask for a second look ? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bismark edit
If you followed the two edits you would see the clarification. As originally stated the edit was based on a list of the largest battleships of WWII. After making it I recalled the incompleted (during WWII) British Vanguard. Thus the 2nd and accurate edit. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's great, except that Bismarck and Tirpitz are both longer and have a wider beam than Vanguard. And Vanguard was only heavier at design displacement, which is a nearly meaningless distinction. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would invite you to stop edit-warring. You have been bold, and you were reverted. Please discuss instead of edit-war. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Parseboy, the edit war is yours. You're an administrator, you know better than this.  The statement as made is 100% factual and germain.  Your comments above suggest it could be worded even more strongly, to wit: "Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by any European power."
 * I'm completely befuddled by your intransigence on this. Please bring an administrator in to referee it.  Thank you.  Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement is neither factual nor germane. Your edit waters the statement down to the point of being incorrect - the implication is that Vanguard is definitively larger, which is not the case.
 * Let me spell it out for you. You made a change. I reverted it. You then reverted that revert. Per WP:BRD (which I suggest you read), my revert is a perfectly legitimate way to express disagreement with your change. Yours is not. Please stop. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is factual and germane. The discussion has been taken up with an administrator's oversight at the Bismark Talk page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Gefion


Think this is the least developed article in the Graf set, but, eh. I had downloaded a few, ended up editing the wrong one, and decided to finish it. As the only representative of its class, it fills a gap. As for the images already up - Odin's passing, Kürfust Friedrich Wilhelm is at 4 out of 5, Kaiserin Augusta, 4 out of 5. If one more person supports the last two, they're passing.

Really hoping I can get away with not cropping this one - it has some funny angles in it, and would need a lot of edge work to make it crop well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)



After an hour and a half of edging. By the way, could you have a look at SMS Gefion? It appears to have fallen off the organizational templates for the German pre-WWI ironclads. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gefion is probably the least-developed article in the set. It fits into this topic for the handful of unprotected cruisers, for which I haven't created a main topic box (like this one) yet.
 * Those restorations look great though: ) Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How does the article look now? Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Iltis and the Iltis-class
Hey, lad. Are you going to be doing these, or shall I put them on the far back burner and concentrate elsewhere. Actually, if you tell me your plans, I'll try to go in that order. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll get to the gunboats eventually, but they're fairly far down the queue, so there's no rush for you to get them done. My probable plans are to continue overhauling the early battleships and maybe intersperse the unprotected cruiser articles (maybe I'll put Gefion toward the front of the line now that it's image has been restored). After that (and that will probably be a while from now). I've been meaning to ask over at WP:TFAR if there's going to be any consideration for the centenary of WWI over the next four years - if so, I'll prioritize articles on ships that were sunk during the war (SMS Emden (1908) is first in line for the overhaul). I might try to do one of the ships sunk at the Battle of Heligoland Bight in August, but that'll depend on how much I can improve those articles and of course on willingness at TFAR to tolerate so many German ship articles ;) It's a pity that SMS Blücher already ran - that would have been great for the centenary of Dogger Bank. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen bell
Could this be counted as source for the bell? --Denniss (talk)
 * I don't think so - that probably counts as a primary source. You might ask at the references help desk to be sure though. Parsecboy (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,310 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 09:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wasn't planning on anything for the next 6 months or so, but as you probably know, the centenary for World War I is rapidly approaching. I have been meaning to ask you if there would be any special consideration for relevant centenaries (for instance, I was hoping to run SMS Emden (1908) on November 9th this year, which marks the centenary of her destruction at the Battle of Cocos). I don't want to flood TFA, and these articles will of course be spread out over a few years, but I was curious if I should focus my time on preparing those articles. For example, I might want to run HMS Iron Duke (1912) - the British flagship for most of the war - on 31 May 2016, the centenary of Jutland. That article is at A-class right now, and fairly low on the queue for FAC, but if there was a good likelihood that it could run on the centenary, I'd move it up in the queue. Thanks for any advice you can give. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The TFA boys and girls generally like round number anniversaries (as do I) so I'm always happy to hold off running something if a "big number" milestone is coming up. If you've got a date in mind in the next year for an existing FA, add it to the pending list and then I'll know not take it in the meantime. (Similarly, I'm always happy to reschedule something I've picked if someone would rather hold it back for a bit for a better date). So work on what you want and when you want to, and then see you at TFA! BencherliteTalk 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks Bencherlite! Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I should check anything running soon and prepare any possible FAs from it. Never hurts to pretty up image work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll probably run SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC next, which will make 4 of the 5 flagships of the HSF. It has one of the Graf lithographs for you to work on :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Gefion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Gefion 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 17:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, at ths rate you may weæll beat out the FPC. I should do SMS Jaguar just to see your reaction. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe so ;) I was planning on working on SMS Seeadler tonight though - I'm feeling motivated to finish the unprotected cruisers with how well Gefion went. That one doesn't have anything for you to work on, though the parent image of the cropped lead photo is fairly hi-res - I don't know if there's much you can do with it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The LoC has a 156 megabyte TIFF of that image. I'm pretty sure I can get a MUCH higher-resolution Seeadler, at the very least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, excellent, that would be great. And yes, I did miss this earlier ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I started restoring Oldenberg. I think it's the only one that might hit issues at FAC, but it's still quite good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's good - I can move that into the lead position on the List of ironclad warships of Germany, which is already a Featured List - that might add a little to the FPC. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, the lithographs for one of the Sachsen-class ironclads will be a much better illustration for that list than the current image. I'll move one of those over too.

Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have one for Sachsen - would you prefer Württenberg or Baden? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately there aren't ones of Sachsen or SMS Bayern (1878). I put Baden as the main image in the class article and Württenberg in the list - that way they're both used in an additional article :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just discovered a high-res version of File:SMS Emden SLV AllanGreen.jpg. And the song I've been taking lines from for this sequence's FPC noms is about to reach "Hardly ever run a ship ashore". It's not the best photo - very grainy - but it's of a one-off event and it's highly unlikely any better images exist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do have a look at image #7 in this set, though: http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/33390 You'll have to hit the right arrow under #5 on the left column to reach it. It might actually be a better image for the event. I'll be a bit - I haven't finished Kaiser Wilhelm II (though I'm nearly done), so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think either one would be great for the article. We could use #7 to replace this image which isn't all that great. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. By the way, note comment on Seeadler above. I think you're going to be happy.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)



How's that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much nicer, very good! By the way, are you having trouble with the servers right now? I have to try everything two or three times before the server will let me do anything. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. I think I'll give it a quarter hour. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems to be working fine now. Curious. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Gefion
The article SMS Gefion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Gefion for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 01:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha. You beat the Featured picture candidate that inspired you. Good work! Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Seeadler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Seeadler 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 02:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II
Will probably remove the border. People grouse so much about them... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks very nice, and that article is at FAC now, which is a nice bonus. I guess removing the border is alright, if people dislike it that much. C'est la vie, right? Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Seeadler
The article SMS Seeadler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Seeadler for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really useful?
Why isn't the fact that SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II cost 20.4 million gold marks "useful"? And why do you doubt the authenticity of this factoid from German Wiki?  I find it interesting that so much treasure was expended on a ship that became obsolete within a few years of its completion. Kindly revert your revert, bitte. Either that, or put it in the fact box. Danke. Sca (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a fact that belongs in the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the entire article. And as for why we can't simply cite Wikipedia, please read WP:Circular. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, stating a sum from 100+ years ago with no context is next to useless, since it won't give the reader any idea about the scale of the amount. And one cannot simply adjust for inflation using templates like inflation since those work based on purchasing power, which is not how things like battleships are paid for. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Costs
I searched online for a source and couldn't find one for this specific ship, other than the info box on German Wiki. I've seen similar figures for other German capital ships of the period (in, for example, the Britannica Yearbook). It seems that for some reason you just don't like having costs in your ship articles, even though they are very relevant to the histories of 19th and 20th century navies. If that's not the case, why don't you, the expert, find a cost and put it in? (It's quite annoying to have one's work instantly trashed.)
 * Sca (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my responsibility to find a source for something you want to include. Please read my comment above. Including a sum from over 100 years ago without any context is next to useless. I choose to spend my time providing relevant information, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That last was a snide remark, and a violation of WP:AGF.
 * I did read your comments and didn't find them convincing. In my view, costs couched in terms of the times at least give an indication of the magnitude of expenditures — quite relevant to military history — and can be compared with costs of other ships, such as those of Britain.
 * So, we disagree. That's acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not one for revert wars, so I'll go my way. Tschuß. Sca (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find your characterization of my revert as "trashing" your work equally snide and a violation of AGF.
 * Most readers won't be able to place a sum in any context, so simply giving a sum is useless. Now, if for example you have access to the German naval budgets for a given year (and thus can tell the reader how much of a chunk of the budget this one ship accounted for), it would be a different story. As for comparing costs of British ships, that's also difficult since very few readers will know how to convert contemporary gold marks to pounds. And even if they could, there are a host of issues that play into why British ships were on the whole cheaper than their German counterparts that the reader wont know, all of which is far too much information for what should be an encyclopedia article written in summary style. You are of course free to start an article on the Relative cost of armaments in the Anglo-German naval arms race, but I have no desire to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Gazelle (1898)
Well you are more qualified than me on the GB-side as a crowd like me. I respect that an suggest, that you may take a look on the german side, ask the google-Translater and ad after that passages.

btw as Türk left the navy he settled down and named his building "building Gazette" - a petitesse, sure, but relating to this perhaps interesting. Regards 1970gemini 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the article needs to be substantially expanded - I've been slowly going through these articles I've written and expanding them with Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe by Hildebrand et. al. See for instance what I was able to do with SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II. At some point, I will get to Gazelle, and presumably Hildebrand et. al. will have covered the story of KL Türk (and probably in a bit more detail than what you have currently). Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that sounds okay. If you may have questions, on Titus Türk or Gazelle don't hesitate to ask?1970gemini 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly will, thanks. To be clear though, this article will probably be on a back burner for a while. My priorities right now are going to shift to improving articles on ships that saw action in World War I (since the centenary of the start of the war is fast approaching) and I'd like to have as many articles as possible to run on the main page on major dates (for instance, I'm currently working on getting SMS Emden (1908) ready for the centenary of her final battle in November). Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)