User talk:Saberwyn/archive seven

Someone else uploading your photos onto Flikr
It's happening again, though at least this time you're being acknowledged: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/5414993011/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/5415573078/ They're uploading the photos as copyright protected, however, rather than the CC-compliant licences which are legally required. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a question at Media_copyright_questions asking how to proceed with this, and have alerted User:Ajayvius, who is the uploader of one of the images. -- saberwyn 22:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about AHS Centaur
Hi there, is there any chance you can look at this question at the humanities reference desk? It's about the AHS Centaur and I figured that as the main contributor, if anyone can help you might be able to. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded...someone else has identified what is likely the best online showing of the requested information. To curb my own curiosity, can you tell me where the inqiring user posted their original question...there's nothing in their contribution history. -- saberwyn 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They posted it to Names of complement and crew lost on AHS Centaur prefix:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives which I noticed at CAT:SD and so moved the question for them. SmartSE (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox mobile suit
Template:Infobox mobile suit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
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) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures, many of them
Hey Saberwyn, as you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories:. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
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) 22:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

USS Proteus (CVL-1)
Hi, thought you might be interested in this. In the article it is alleged that the ship was at one time HMAS Sydney, as a hospital ship during the First World War? Not sure if this is correct? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like its already been deleted as vandalism/a hoax. -- saberwyn 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia photos
Fyi I'm about to go off to bed, I'll reply to any of your replies in about 6 1/2 hours. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Saberwyn, he replied to me. He said that he can't make a change on such evidence – he'd need proof, in print, that it isn't Australia. Sort of like Wikipedia, where you'd need a reliable source. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can prove that the ship in the photographs is not Australia...the best I can do is show that she was not in New York in 1932-33.
 * To start, it's not print, but the Royal Australian Navy' "Ship Histories" page for Australia states:
 * Following a period of trials Australia (II) departed Portsmouth on 3 August 1928 and proceeding via Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Boston, New York, [emphasis added] Annapolis, Kingston, Balboa, Tahiti, Wellington and Brisbane, reached Sydney on 23 October 1928.
 * She spent the first six years of her commission [1928-1934] on the Australia Station, mostly in home waters. In 1932 she cruised to various Pacific Islands and in 1933 she visited New Zealand.
 * I'll need to check the specific wording when I next get my hands on it, but in my userspace rewrite, I've cited the 1932 Pacific Islands and 1933 New Zealand cruises to page 22 of Vic Cassells' The Capital Ships. There may also be content confirming this activity in John Bastock's Australian Ships of War and Alan Payne's H.M.A.S. Australia: the story of the 8 inch cruiser 1928-1955, but both of these will be harder to access. -- saberwyn 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything on Canberra? Did she ever visit the US? I think we can assume it is one of the two – I'd be surprised if someone got the whole nationality wrong. My bet is that the dates are off, but if we can rule out Canberra and any possible visit in 1932–33, I think we'd have enough. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the RAN, Canberra was on the China Station for at least some of 1932, and was in Australian waters for the rest that year and 1933. The webpage makes no mention of New York (her delivery voyage was via South Africa, instead of North America and the Panama Canal, like Australia). From the cites at HMAS Canberra (D33), p. 40 of Cassells backs up 1932-33, and there's no mention of visits to America at all, but I want to check the dead-tree first. -- saberwyn 04:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let me know when you've checked and I'll get back in contact with my friend. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cassells makes the claim that the only time Australia left home waters from arrival to end of 1934 are the two cruises mentioned above. He also makes no mention of visits to any part of the US by Canberra. I'll check Bastock on my way past the library this afternoon (about 9 hours), but Payne looks to be out of reach for now...the only host library near me is moving into new premises. -- saberwyn 20:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bastock doesn't mention the 1928 visit to NYC or the 1932-33 cruises, but identifies the December 1934 deployment to the Mediterranean as the first significant departure of Australia from the local region (pages 102-4, only had a brief look and forgot exactly what page it was on). Again with Canberra, no indication that she visited the US at any point in her career. That's about the best I can do in the immediate future...hope its enough. -- saberwyn 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little better, the library was able to summon up Payne's HMAS Australia: 1928-1955. Page 5 has Australia arriving in NY from Boston on 29 August 1928 and docking at the Cunard No. 3 Wharf. The ship remained in NY until 3 September, when she sailed for Annapolis. Operations in 1932 and 1933 are covered on pages 12 to 14, and confirm what the other sources above say: New Guinea in August-Septenber 1933, New Zealand in August-September 1934, and Australian waters for the rest of this time. -- saberwyn 11:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty conclusive. Do you have any other sources you need to check before I contact him? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about as done as I can get. Fire away. -- saberwyn 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, I'll let him know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch *  ۩  ۞ 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 

HMS Ark Royal was an aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy that served in the Second World War. Designed in 1934 to fit the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was built by Cammell Laird and Company, Ltd. at Birkenhead, England, and completed in November 1938. Her design differed from previous aircraft carriers. Ark Royal was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, instead of an add-on or part of the superstructure. Designed to carry a large number of aircraft, she had two hangar deck levels. She served during a period that first saw the extensive use of naval air power; a number of carrier tactics were developed and refined aboard Ark Royal. She served in some of the most active naval theatres of the Second World War, including operations off Norway, the search for the German battleship Bismarck, and the Malta Convoys. She was torpedoed on 13 November 1941 and sank the following day. Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries; investigators were keen to know how the carrier was lost, given there were efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar. Several design flaws were discovered during the investigation and were rectified in new British carriers. (more...)

histmerge
Hey Saber, do you want me to histmerge Australia with User:Saberwyn/HMAS Australia II? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think its necessary. -- saberwyn 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. By the way... that's a damn good article you've written there. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! On a related note, any word from the NHHC about those images? -- saberwyn 04:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Officers and men
Hi Saberwyn, I noticed your copyedit on the Ark Royal article. You changed the term "officers and men" to "officers and sailors". I thought you should know that the the former is the traditional term when referrring to a ship's comlement. Is there a reason you changed it? - Nick Thorne  talk  22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although traditional, I think using sailors instead of men or ratings is clearer to the general audience of Wikipedia. Also, to the unintiated, "officers and men" can read as implying that officers aren't men (although if that means all officers are female or just aren't 'manly men' is a debate for your local messdeck). -- saberwyn 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Australian hospital ships
Category:Australian hospital ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
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) 04:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
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) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hood ACR
I think that I've address all of your concerns for this ACR. I'd be obliged if you could take a look and see if there's anything else that still needs to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for History of Australian naval aviation
Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

New RAAF battle honours
Hi Saberwyn, do you know if the RAAF has had a process to assess and award retrospective battle honours like the RAN recently had? Someone has asked in the FAC of No. 79 Squadron RAAF why the squadron received its World War II battle honours in late 2010, and I don't know and can't find the answer. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know for sure, sorry. My guess is that similar occurences happened to the RAN: at the time of the squadron's service, battle honours were under British control and the Poms didn't think the the squadron's service (or the campaigns themselves) warranted recognising, but a RAAF-controlled review (probably prompted by the 90th anniversary, see cite 40 "New battle honours unveiled") led to the update. Maybe contact the RAAF Museum or the RAAF's Sea Power Centre equivalent for more info? -- saberwyn 00:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As it's for a FAC the RAAF Aerospace Centre's response probably wouldn't be usable as a reference (IF they responded, which in my experience the ADF's history branches aren't great at). By the way, I took this photo of Aurora Australis at Garden Island last week with my phone when I was in Sydney for work, but unfortunately she'd sailed by the time I returned with my proper camera the next day - you might have better luck if you have the time (and inclination). It's not really clear in my photo, but she appeared to have a landing craft of some kind (a LCVP (Australia)?) on the deck in front of the bridge, which was quite interesting. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out next time I'm near the Sydney CBD. This is why I'm in the habit of carrying my camera all the time :P -- saberwyn 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kelat (1881)
Hi, do you know whether the coal hulk Kelat sunk at Darwin was ever commissioned in the Royal Australian Navy? I have just created the article and was not sure as I do not see any reference to her being commissioned, but you may know definitatively. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources I have access to, I'd say not. However, more comprehensive works may disagree, and I'll keep an eye out. -- saberwyn 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Cerberus disambiguation
Hi, I recently created HMAS Cerberus (disambiguation), as a number of ships have been named HMAS Cerberus. I placed a para in the article about other ships and establishments having been at one time named HMAS Cerberus II, III, IV, V, etc. Just seeing what your thoughts are? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be worth identifying the whos and whens of the other vessels and bases carrying the name, even when followed by a number, plus (if possible) why they were styled like this (my first guess is that they were attached and/or subordinate to whatever was Cerberus I at the time.
 * I have found that the six Naval Reserve Depots prior to Second World War were known as HMAS Cerberus I-VI. They were all commissioned with new names on 1 August 1940. Also tenders to HMAS Cerberus (naval base) have been numbered Cerberus II and so on since the Second World War.
 * I also think we should also move the current base to HMAS Cerberus (naval base), and the disambiguation to the "primary" name slot. -- saberwyn 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved HMAS Cerberus to HMAS Cerberus (naval base). I will wait a few days and link those pages that still link to HMAS Cerberus, before moving HMAS Cerberus (disambiguation) to HMAS Cerberus and speedy deleting HMAS Cerberus (disambiguation).

I have also had a go at Penguin which have also had ships and establishments having been at one time named HMAS XXXX II, III, IV, V, etc. If you disagree with anything I have done, please let me know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found that HMAS Penguin support bases were established in Newcastle, Brisbane and Darwin and each of these was also named Penguin II, III, IV, V, etc. Not sure when they were commissioned with new names. Newm30 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Poole & Steel
I have just created a stub on Poole & Steel, however note that alot of the usage on Wikipeadia shows the company as Poole & Steele. I have come across this plate which should clarify the spelling. Your thoughts?? Newm30 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

SOV Windermere
I have just created SOV Windermere, which is to be leased by the RAN. Do you believe that this should be included in the list of current vessels of the RAN or leave until lease expires and place in list of ships of the RAN? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it really belongs on either list. As I understand it, the ship remains under private operation for the duration of the lease, and the extent of RAN involvement is the ability to stick personnel and cargo aboard and say "go that way" in the event of a disaster relief operation. -- saberwyn 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Could we create a leased section on the list of ships of the RAN? That way the ship is identified as having being leased by the RAN? The leased section may also expand as some ships on the existing list may have only been chartered, therefore not being technically RAN ships but providing a valuable asset to the RAN. I can understand your POV as usually only requistioned/commissioned ships are placed in the list of ships of the RAN. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting this rather odd change to my user page. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Maitland
Hi Saberwyn, and thanks for putting image of vessel into the panel - excellent idea.

I do have some other images of the actual commission service which I want to put into a gallery on the HMAS Maitland page. However, I have noticed you have removed a gallery at Rhapsody of the Seas, where your edit summary advises, 'remove gallery (that's what Commons is for)'.

I only noticed your edit history after I put the gallery up at HMAS Maitland and so checked out WP:IG. I didnt read anything that absolutely forbade use of a gallery in favour of Wiki Commons, as your edit on Rhapsody seems to imply (02:05, 15 April 2011‎; perhaps I misread your brief comment). But I did note acceptable guidelines for inclusion of galleries in wiki's image use policy. So I adjusted the gallery title and inclusions, accordingly.

I am, consequently, interested in your opinion of the HMAS Maitland and Rhapsody galleries before I proceed further, and your interpretatiion WP:IG and gallery inclusion generally.

Thanks, Peter Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't claim credit for the move, that was done by User:Muhandes. All I did was make the caption a little more punchy.


 * As for galleries, I don't think image galleries are forbidden, but are discouraged in favour of links to Commons (which is designed as an image repository) unless multiple annotated images are required in a concentrated area to convey a concept that is completely beyond textual descriptions. For most subjects (including, in my personal experience, 'objects' like ships), a small number of images spaced throughout the text is all that is needed for the general reader to gain a visual understanding of the subject while preventing them from becoming overwhelmed. Generally, these images should be related to the surrounding text where possible; for example, if the image is of a warship's weapon, Average Reader would expect it to be near commentary on the ship's armament (See Manual of Style (layout) for more on this). My philosophy is keep the best/most useful few images in an article (determined through editing, consensus, and WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss), and if the reader wants more images, direct them to Commons.


 * I think galleries in articles are better suited to subjects that are more nebulous concepts like art or fashion (like the WP:IG example of 1750–1795 in fashion), or have a lot of variation across a small subset that needs to be addressed (say, variations across a particular species of animal or plant). There's generally very few drastic visual changes in a ship's career (major refit, repaint following ownership change, or serious damage are the only things I can think of off the top of my head), and in most cases, there will be enough text to accompany such an image. While a reader would only need one or two images to comprehend what Maitland or Rhapsody look like, you can't just put up a single image and say "This is what macaws looks like".


 * As an aside, to best identify yourself on talk pages, sign your account name using four tildes (~) . -- saberwyn 07:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Saberwyn, and thanks for your work in reviewing the HMCS Thiepval article. Much appreciated! Tufaceous (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate :) -- saberwyn 23:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Funky results
Greetings Saberwyn, You have a follow up message on my talk page regarding the USS Concord (1828) title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt fix Saberwyn, that was just what the doctor.., err, Admiral ordered! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stumbling across the above-mentioned discussion, a question. How would italics be added for non-USN ships? (Not needing it, just wondering.) Also, in ref the "a/c in 1800" remark, don't forget balloons. (Thp you're right, AFAIK not even balloons were used shipboard that far back... :.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 07:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In all cases, only the name of the ship is italicised; any prefixes, suffixes, registration/hull/pennant numbers, or disambiguators stay their normal unitalicised selves.
 * If the ship name/article title has a ship prefix that is recognised by the infobox template, or does not have a prefix in the article title, the Infobox Ship template will make title to appear with an unitalicised prefix and disambiguation, and italicise the name (i.e RMS Queen Mary, HMS Ark Royal (91), etc.). I don't know the actual mechanics behind it, so I'm going to say "magic"
 * For cases where the prefix isn't recognised or the title takes the format "Nation Type Name", the displaytitle magic word can be used (i.e. or  ) -- saberwyn 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Page issues
Hello again Saberwyn, you've been a great help on the USS Concord (1828) page with the info box and italicization of page title, however there are a few issues you brought up that need some clarifying:

SHIP IMAGE: On the Concord page you removed the image saying -- "Do not use a different ship in the infobox, unless they are the exact same design" -- but the USS Constellation (1854) is a Sloop of war as is the USS Concord (1828) so I'm afraid I'm not following you here.

IMAGE SIZE: Here you state that -- "Images not in the lead section should not have size hardcoding" -- however MOS allows for image size adjusting if -- "there is a good reason to do so" -- and in WP there are often times many good reasons to do so, esp where text in the body or in a caption is involved. e.g.Often times staggered caption text can be corrected with just a small image size adjustment i.e."a good reason to do so". This is done out of concern for the readers.

SEE ALSO: Here you maintain that -- "See also sections should only include articles that are directly related to the article's subject" -- yet MOS also states: Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." The links I had e.g. List of United States Navy ships and List of United States Navy people are certainly "peripherally related" as MOS allows for. My thinking is that the only way many of the articles ever get read here on WP is through a link, esp in see also. When I edit I always think of the reader first. They are the only reason why were are here. Chances are someone reading about the Concord would love to see a list of ships where he or she can instantly select another ship's article to read. This is but one example. There are (very) many others.

I am assuming you have the best of intentions but from my experience it's usually best to remind fellow editors of issues only where there is a clear policy violation that will be detrimental to the readers. I would like to restore a few items on the page for the above reasons but before I do I would like to hear your feed back on these items, and if I'm wrong about any item(s) I will gladly stand corrected, and so you know that I mean well. Best of regards, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to your concerns:
 * Ship image. The image in the infobox is intended to visually identify the ship in question. Preferably, this is done by using an image of the ship in question, but if this is not possible, a sister ship built from the same design can be used until an image of the ship itself can be found. Constellation and Concord are not built to the same design: although both categorised as sloops of war (which in itself is a broad category that encompassed everything not within the Royal Navy's six 'rates' of warship), Constellation has twice the displacement, which implies that the ships had significantly different dimensions and layouts, and using an image of the first to represent the second would be visually misleading.
 * Image size. My personal interpretation of "there is good reason to do so" relates to the image itself only: i.e. if the image needs to be expanded in size so the readers can see the relevant detail, or for significantly non-standard image ratios such as panoramas. "Making the caption line up" falls outside my interpretation, although I can agree to disagree on this matter.
 * See also section. It appears I prefer a closer correlation between they subject and "See also" links than you do. This is because I believe any links here should help the reader understand more about the topic of the article (in this case, Concord). To me, the problem with most of the links you used is that they are too broad and only tenuously connected to the subject at hand. I think that indicating someone should go to Naval tactics in the Age of Sail or History of the United States Navy for further information on Concord is making them take a rather large leap: is there anything in the ship article that requires the reader to have a grasp of naval tactics and operations to understand, or knowledge of the entire history of the USN? I doubt there is anything to be gained by dropping the reader into a List of United States Navy people, because the topic of that list has nothing to do with the ship, or ships at all. List of sloops of war of the United States Navy (which I've just replaced List of sailing frigates of the United States Navy with because Concord was a sloop, not a frigate), is to me a good link because it directs readers to ships of roughly similar era and capabilities to compare with, and from there, if they so choose, the reader can then take the next step up to the much broader List of United States Navy ships. Again, I can agree to disagree, and if you restore the links, I won't take them back out again. -- saberwyn 06:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye Saberwyn, regarding ship's designs, even though we are dealing with two sloops' I must say you articulated your point excellently. Yes, the displacement difference between the two vessels is such that indeed I had the wrong image. (drat! I can't find an image of the Concord anywhere.) If you know of or come across an image of any vessel that is close enough in design for inclusion in the article please let me know.


 * IMAGE SIZE: The size you used is adequate so I have no issues other than these things are best left alone, as too many of the conflict between editors, unfortunately, is over images. Again the reader will not be effected whether we use the size I chose or yours in this case, so we can let ol' Perry remain as he is. Let me just again say though that there are often 'good reasons' to adjust image size that go beyond the concern for the image itself. Enough said.


 * SEE ALSO: If the topic/link directly relates or expands on the page's subject, then that topic should be included in the body of the text. To me, 'see also' means -- i.e.'Now that you've read about the Concord, a sailing war vessel, you might want to also look into Naval tactics in the Age of Sail, or a list of other sailing vessels, i.e.just as long as it isn't a list of fishing boats with sails.  :-) Okay, if I am to restore any of the links I think it would be tactics'. The others are perhaps a bit more peripheral so I'll leave all the rest of them out. Again, many of WP articles are (almost) only read by other editors, and need to be linked to in the 'See also' section of related(+ -) articles -- or they'll never get read. Before I took to editing I spent years reading the history pages here, and the 'See also' sections took me to places I never would have gone to on my own.


 * As you may or may not have guessed, I am a lover of ships. I am the proud 'Captain' of my own 'ship'. Her name is the USS Row-Boat. Salute! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New development
Thanks to the 'List of sloops of war of the United States Navy' you included on the Concord page I was able to easily check the spec's on sloops' whose dimensions come the closest to that of Concords and found two ships whose length, beam and draft are identical. See Concord's talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be a question better answered by people more knowledgeable about Age of Sail vessels. Try WP:MILHIST or WP:SHIPS. Sorry I can't be of assistance. -- saberwyn 20:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saberwyn, Obviously I am more familiar with the history side of ships than I am about the sort of things we were dealing with. Yes, I'll look to the projects you linked to and see what comes to light. Thanks again for your help. See you around, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IP 76.20.48.105
Thanks. Reported at AIV. Salvidrim (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: HMAS Australia (1911)
This is a note to let the main editors of HMAS Australia (1911) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 25, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



HMAS Australia was one of three Indefatigable-class battlecruisers built for the defence of the British Empire. She was launched in 1911, and commissioned as flagship of the fledgling Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1913. At the start of World War I, Australia was tasked with finding and destroying the German East Asia Squadron, which was prompted to withdraw from the Pacific by the battlecruiser's presence. Repeated diversions to support the capture of German colonies in New Guinea and Samoa, as well as an overcautious Admiralty, prevented the battlecruiser from engaging the German squadron before the latter's destruction. Australia was then assigned to North Sea operations, which consisted primarily of patrols and exercises, until the end of the war. During this time, Australia was involved in early attempts at naval aviation, and 11 of her personnel participated in the Zeebrugge Raid. Post-war budget cuts saw Australia's role downgraded to a training ship before she was placed in reserve in 1921. The disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty required the destruction of Australia as part of Britain's commitment, and she was scuttled off Sydney Heads in 1924. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Anzac class
I don't necessarily disagree with you that each article should have an overview of the design and construction, but when the content is exactly the same for each ship in the class, it makes far more sense to have the information in the main class article with a link to it from the individual ship articles, rather than duplicate the content across eight or ten separate ship articles. At some stage somebody is going to edit one article and not the others and all articles will end up being out of sync. If you really want the content in each article it can always be transcluded, which avoids that problem. That said, the main class article covers the entire class and, for the most part, individual ship articles should contain content specific to each ship, rather than general class overviews. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for having the detailed design history and technical detail centralised in the class article. However, in order for an article for an indivudual ship to be considered comprehensive, I believe that enough of the design and specification information should be included for an interested party to gain an understanding of the physicalities of the vessel without having to roam elsewhere (while at the same time, if they choose to go to the class article, they will learn things that are not in the individual ship articles). Yes, there will be some shift in prose and layout over time, but as long as the cited data stays consistent, I'm happy. The problem with limiting detail to aspects unique to each ship is that, at the moment, seven of the Aussie Anzac are for all intents and purposes identical, the eighth is not very far removed at all, and most potential changes will require relevant 'base' data for context. -- saberwyn 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (random passer-by) I've always gone on the theory that readers want to know a ship's story for those articles and will go to the class article if they want technical information. Most readers won't care about the specifications, in my view. I realize this puts me in the minority of ship editors here :-) but that's how I've done it for all my South American dreadnought articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Stalwart
Hi mate a reply on the HMAS Stalwart talk page re it's final fate --Whodidwhat (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate a very little info is at http://maritime.heritage.nsw.gov.au/public/search.cfm you can get a copy of the "Scuttled and Abandoned Ships in Australian Waters" at http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36468.pdf --Whodidwhat (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)--Whodidwhat (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * HMAS Geranium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Clark Island

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fire in anger for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fire in anger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fire in anger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy training ships
Category:Royal Australian Navy training ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy troop ships
Category:Royal Australian Navy troop ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy survey ships
Category:Royal Australian Navy survey ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy sloops
Category:Royal Australian Navy sloops, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships
Category:Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo opportunity
Hi, in case you haven't seen the story (or the ship), HMAS Choules is now docked at Sydney. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Damnit! I had a vague plan to go out to Sydney Heads this morning, but didn't because I wasn't sure if the 21 December date I read somewhere was arrival in Sydney or departure from Perth. I'm going away for christmas, but I'll get some "alongside at FBE" shots in the new year. -- saberwyn 05:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited HMNZS Charles Upham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (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) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration on Nuclear submarine?
Hi, I see that you're the major contributor of the article Collins class submarine; I'd like to know if you're interested in helping me write Nuclear submarine. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to assist in copyediting and general submarine background, but my ability to contribute information on nuclear-specific matters would be extremely limited. The Royal Australian Navy has never operated nuke boats, and material down here on nuclear submarines is limited. -- saberwyn 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for offering; in case you're not aware, the RAN might operate nuke boats in the near future according to this. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you work on the individual Collins boat, which is easier to get to GA/FA? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be calling it likely yet: there's been a lot of talk about nuclear boats as part of the Collins class replacement submarine project, primarily from lobby/special interest groups. For that to happen, most of the following need to occur: 1) Australia needs to acquire some form of nuclear-based infrastructure beyond a single research reactor, 2) The Australian government and public need to backflip on their stance against nuclear-ness, 3) The RAN needs to solve its submariner recruitment/retention issue, particularly with the issue of longer deployments the boats will be capable of and pressured into 4) Someone needs to be willing and able to sell Australia a nuclear submarine (either as design or fully assembled), 5) The aforementioned someone will have to abide by or negotiate around the Australian defence industry's "But Mummy, I wanna build it!" attitude.

As for writing up the individual Collins, that's not something I plan on pursuing indepth in the near future because I've decided to stay away from FA and related processes. Also, material on the individual boats is sketchy, because the majority of their activities are (understandably) classified. -- saberwyn 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How long would it take to acquire nuclear infrastructure? I would've thought that the US would be willing to transfer to us nuclear technology for use in subs, like the Russian transfer to India one of its nuclear boats, since it would be considered for peaceful use, wouldn't it? As for the company issue, we are currently engaged in talks with the Brits about hiring their sailors.


 * Why wouldn't you involve yourself in GA work? If I did decide to expand the articles of each indiv. boat, I hope you'd be willing to provide your valuable knowledge and expertise on the matter. You can chat to me at . --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in, the Australian Government has explicitly stated on several occasions that all options for the Collins class replacement are currently on the table, except for the subs being nuclear powered. The Australian Defence Association's influence seems to be limited to being quoted the media - the government and ADF normally ignore it. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How likely would the Aus Gov change its mind? Are there any lobby org trying to convince the authority to change the Gov's stance? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea how long exactly, but if we acquired nuclear submarines, we'd be the only nation in the world to operate them but not have nuclear power, and that doesn't happen overnight. We've got no civilian experience to draw on/recruit from, most/all training would have to be done overseas, and we'd be heavily dependant on the original owner-navy to provide technical support, repairs, parts, etc. Maybe the Yanks or the Poms would sell/lease/give us a submarine (or four+, which is the minimum number I personally think we need) but I think that's a level of political and inter-service interaction beyond what's currently on the table. The Indian leases of the occasional Russian boat are the only examples of a nuke sub in the hands of a non-building country, and I think that's tied to the Indians' construction of their own. Luring people from other Western militaries is something that's been happening since year dot; its because of an advertising campaign related to a recent tweak to the citizenship conditions that it's made the media recently. There are a few lobby groups saying that nuclear is the way to go (the Navy League of Australia is another group off the top of my head). However, considering that the Australian government has been saying no to nuclear propulsion since the start of the project, and the public perception of (and opposition to) anything nuclear, its going to take a lot of effort or the combo of serious desperation and a foreign navy/builder dangling cheap shinies to win hearts and minds.

As for GA/A/FA, I'd be more than happy to help. -- saberwyn 03:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ASV Wyatt Earp
Hi Saberwyn. Just saw your article on ASV Wyatt Earp. Was wondering whether ASV Wyatt Earp was operated by the RAN, DMS and AHS or just AHS? Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea. I'm guessing that she's RAN owned and crewed (but not commissioned) and operated under the auspices of the AHS, but I couldn't find any RS to solidly support this or any other position. -- saberwyn 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The ABC has a reporter on the Aurora Australis at the moment, and she seems to have photographed and interviewed the RAN crew of this boat (four hydrographers, who have a "small yellow boat" embarked on the ship): . Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome
Glad you liked it. I had worked on Tarrytown Light for WP:NRHP, the first time I had ever worked on an article about a lighthouse, so there was a lot of learning to do. I've always found that story intriguing because so many people are so sure it really happened, and I began doing research on it. I realized it demanded a separate article so it would come up high in Google searches and people would be better informed (It now comes up at the top of the Google results for "I'm a lighthouse. Your call"). I see people are even linking to it in blog comments. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Book located at Australian National Maritime Museum
Hi Saberwyn, I was wondering whether I could ask whether you could see whether you could locate some info regarding a vessel William and Ann which is located in the book Wooden Ships and Iron Men: The Story of the Square rigged Merchant Marine of British North America by Frederick William Wallace which is held at the Australian National Maritime Museum's Vaughan Evans Library? The 1924 edition has the ship on page 82 (shown on Google Books snippet view)? Can you assist? Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can do so directly, at least not anytime soon. However, I'd recommend you send an enquiry to the museum's free Ask a Librarian service. They'd be able to look up the relevant information, and (if you ask) will send out copies of the relevant pages by e- or snail-mail. -- saberwyn 07:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Newm30 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion notifications
Hi Saberwyn. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   22:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commonscat inline listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonscat inline. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonscat inline redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * HMAS Adelaide (LHD 02) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to LCAC


 * HMAS Canberra (LHD 01) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to LCAC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Frisbee (ride)


A tag has been placed on Frisbee (ride), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 22:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 501st Legion (Star Wars)


The article 501st Legion (Star Wars) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No sign of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited HMAS Manoora (1935), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Balikpapan and Battle of Tarakan (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) 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Cocos
Great work with expanding this article! Your edit summary is rather modest given the extent of the improvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Battle of Cocos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Collier and Padang


 * Cocos (Keeling) Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Collier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

HMAS Collins (SSG 73) Spelling matter
Actually even for British spelling the original one was incorrect. It would be 'manoeuvrability' rather then 'manoeuverability'? Yes, the American version is maneuverability, but wouldn't the lack of the 'e' also be present as per the MacMillan Dictionary? Either way. 'manoeuverability → maneuverability' this is inconsistent with MacMillan. Strange how it did not default to the UK version, but either way the previous incarnation seems wrong in several dictionaries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't worry over British spelling, only incorrect spelling. Though I hope we can fix it to default to the UK spelling for future edits. If you search for the incorrect 'VERA' you'll notice a bunch of them exist. Don't worry about before, I'm actually happy someone gives me feedback on the matter, I hate typos and now this one will be 'auto-magically' fixed in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

HMVS Cerberus
Cite added. Solicitr (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Article by a Collins class skipper
You might find this article by the recently-retired captain of two Collins class subs of interest. It's one of the most clear-eyed assessments of the boats strengths and weaknesses I've seen. Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'HMS Nelson (1814)'
Hi. The article 'HMS Nelson (1814)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://emuseum.anmm.gov.au/code/emuseum.asp?style=single&currentrecord=3&page=search&profile=objects&searchdesc=Nelson&newvalues=1&newcurrentrecord=4
 * You added this in March 2011.

This link is marked with Dead link in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

HMAS Westralia (1939)
Hi Saberwyn. I just noticed that you moved HMAS Westralia (1939) to HMAS Westralia (1929). I am not sure that this works as she was not HMAS Westralia in 1929, only MV Westralia. Generally if we need to disambiguate requistioned/captured military ships, we disambiguate via year of commission, not year of launch. See HMS Fly for examples of when ships captured or requistioned are titled. I would prefer MV Westralia (1929) as a redirect, then HMAS Westralia (1939) as the RAN ship. Happy to seek concensus at WP:SHIPS. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Danube
First of all thank you for your input.

Yes, Wiki had to make some rule for fiction, but I tried to make some balance for that, Timeline and people watching after original broadcasting (because they will watch TNG before DS9). As usual final product is problematic. So I decided to show something like first in every generations (we will see, it is still work in progress).

Anyway, I think you followed my Danube link to that table and I was hoping when you (and me) find some time, that we need to clear few unusual names (the one you added in citation).

But I agree, there are so many other things to do (plus reading The Star Trek Encyclopedia and doing frame by frame of certain episodes is not that fast or interesting.

Best wishes to you too and happy editing. SilverWolf7 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of current ships of the Royal Australian Navy
Thanks for taking a look at the list. I am planning on giving the same treatment to the rest of the list as well, though your stab at it is also welcome. On the citations, each should have a corresponding entry in the bibliography. I have used WP:SHIPS featured list List of armored cruisers of Germany as a basis for how to do this one. They have a section for notes, citations, and bibliography. I was also taking the featured lists as a guide for adding a little blurb for each class, along with an 'at-a-glance' capability chart and ships in class list. That way there is a little more context there for the reader than just a bland list of ship names and dates. Josh (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft email to the AWM
Hi Saberwyn, I'd appreciate any comments you might have on an email I'm drafting to the AWM on the possibility of them releasing images under a CC-By license. I've started a sort-of centralised discussion of this at: User talk:Nick-D. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

ADV Ocean Shield
Hi Saberwyn, just wondering whether you are looking to create ADV Ocean Shield, as she is arriving in Freemantle on Thursday? Shame about HMAS Choules being in dock for up to five months. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, but needs fleshing out. -- saberwyn 05:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will have a look at a number of sources. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited ADV Ocean Shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defence (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) 15:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial event
We're tentatively looking at August 25 for a photography taking session at the Australian War Memorial. (This may be subject to change.) Photographers would be allowed to license their pictures CC-BY and the primary purpose being to photograph some exhibits about the Great War before they close. This isn't about taking pictures of specific things, but of the exhibits inside. It would be in Canberra obviously but out of town people would be more than welcome. :) You can request funding from WM-AU for travel if you need it. As more details become available, such as the exact time and where inside to meet, I'll post on the Australian notice board. We'd love to see you there. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Enforcer (ship design)
Nice work fixing this long-neglected article up. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RAN Website
It looks like the RAN has launched a new website today ...and has broken a lot (all?) of our links to it. Almost all the Seapower Centre publications have also vanished (though if this is like what the Army did a few months ago, they'll be re-uploaded over the next few weeks). Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aarrgghhhh!!! Have posted a comment on the Facebook page asking them to ensure old URLs are either re-established or redirects are provided.  Not confident of any reply.  You would think that they would have sorted this out before making the change, but obviously you'd be wrong. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, joy! Oh, happiness! Oh, crap, there goes my weekend. -- saberwyn 08:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To make things even better, a lot of the content of individual pages appears to have changed. I'm feeling reluctant to start updating almost 2,000 external links if its going to mean re-verifying every single piece of information. -- saberwyn 09:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a predictable pattern to the new URLs? If so, a bot could do the job (via WP:BOTREQ). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only patters I'm seeing at the moment are many pages moved to subsubsub-levels and an almost consistent preference for lowercase and dashes instead of underscores - nothing that could really be used to program a bot. The main problem I'm running into is that pages on the RAN end are either 1) still missing (i.e. every ship history from mid-S downwards is gone, and apparently the only historical aircraft the RAN has operated is the AgustaWestland AW109) or 2) don't/may no longer support what they're cited against (most of the content from the old Canberra class page has dissapeared from the new Amphibious Assault Ship page). Do you think running a bot to pull the last 'good' version from the Internet Archive as an archiveurl would be a more feasible option? -- saberwyn 10:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to the content on historical ships and aircraft it might be worth waiting and seeing - the Army launched a fairly spartan new website earlier this year, but have since considerably fleshed it out. The RAAF's new website remains a train wreck though, and is much worse than what it replaced. I imagine that the RAN will re-upload all the ship histories given that they've put a lot of work into this in recent years (ditto the Seapower Centre), but this may take some time. I'm going to need to work on an essay all this weekend, but can help out with fixing the links from next week. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.navy.gov.au/Navy_Marks_109th_Birthday_With_Historic_Changes_To_Battle_Honours and http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Units_entitlement_list.pdf are lined almost 250 times each. If a bot could replace those (once the new targets are found), it would make things a lot easier


 * I have received the following reply to my query on Facebook:
 *   Links to the old SeaPower and history information will be added to the new site in the next few days once we have made some configuration changes to the old server Ray (Navy Admin
 * Perhaps we should just wait and see... - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They've put a nice explanation up on the "Page not found" template (see http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Farncomb for example). The relevant points for us are Thoughts? -- saberwyn 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, page redirection is not a practical solution due to the significant naming convention change and the large number of pages and amount of content involved" (which means we'll have to update the links on our end, probably 'by hand')
 * They've identified the types of content most likely to not be on the new site at the moment: "history and heritage of the Royal Australian Navy as well as some publications." but promise that some of it is coming.
 * The rest of it (specifically Sea Power Centre materials and publications) is going to be farmed off to a new website. It might not be worth updating any SPC-A type content until this new site goes live, because all we'll have to do is update it again.
 * That all sounds sensible. I presume that they've received a few complaints judging from the unusual amount of detail on that page! (though the RAN's web team are to be commended for having posted this). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Craft of Opportunity Program
Hi Saberwyn, I have found an interesting possibility that MSA Bermagui (IMO:374314), is now Bermagui II based in Sydney. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
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) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
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) 09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)