User talk:Sturmvogel 66

(i.e. it's useful to the editor when they are editing). Some of that usefulness is removed, though, when the blank line is filled with comment text, so...that makes it up to the regulars imo. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!
Welcome to the drive. I think you might be interested to look at the BamBot list or take a look at [|the instructions section] to find some articles for practicing your citing skills. Otherwise, I wish you good luck for the drive! You'll need it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

[[HSWMS Äran]]
Thank you for your excellent idea of putting the coastal defence ship HSWMS Äran forward as a Good Article and the work you have done so far to improve the article. I have added a Construction and career section and put it up for review as you suggested. simongraham (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! I see that you've done Wasa as well. Nominate it once I'm done with Äran and I review it as well.
 * Thank you. simongraham (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the GA for Äran. You may also see that I have amended HSWMS Wasa (1901) in line with that review and submitted it too. simongraham (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in collaborating on the smaller Swedish ironclads? I'm not sure that your Swedish-language books provide any information on them considering their unique status, but I built articles on them based on whatever I could get from English-language sources many years ago. They're grossly incomplete, but it would be nice to get them up to GA quality as co-nominations if you're interested. And would improving the more modern Swedish ships together be of interest as well? I don't know if you have Swedish-language sources on them as well, but I could only maybe get Gotland to GA from the sources I have immediately to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds an excellent idea. There are quite a few to do. simongraham (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll update the ironclad's articles first so you can add whatever you have available whenever you're ready and then start work on cleaning up and expanding the 20th century ships. I have a topic box for the ironclads built already so we can track our progress at User:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads and can build others if you find them helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I have done some work on new articles for HSWMS Niord and HSWMS Oden. I would value any additions your would like to make before I also work on HSWMS Thor. simongraham (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937)
The article Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gotha WD.11
The article Gotha WD.11 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gotha WD.11 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gotha WD.11/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!
Welcome, welcome, welcome Sturmvogel 66! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:39, 2 February 2024 UTC //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sturmvogel_66&action=purge refresh via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Vasa and referencing standards
Thanks for your input on the article talk page. I also raised referencing generally at Wikipedia talk:Citing_sources where there has been quite a volume of comments, and it's still ongoing... Within Vasa (ship) itself, you might have realised that some of this is down to difficult interactions with another user who has not been editing for the past 4 or 5 days (perhaps they've had the same problem as me – I was wiped out by covid for a few days and still not 100%.) I am hoping they will be back soon so that we can resolve things in some sort of amicable manner, but input from other editors is surely going to help.

On a technical note, what reasons do you have for not liking the sfn template? It is not a first choice for my editing, but I will use it if its use is already established in an article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I forget the details, but it's not as flexible as I'd need it to be and it requires more typing than my own preferred author (disambiguation), page style. I'll have to take a look at the discussion; I know that I've commented more than once on the topic in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Italian destroyer Antonio Pigafetta
Hey, I saw that you reverted my edits on the page despite being properly cited, Could you tell reason bhind it? I admit that deleting biblograpy was a bad call but my first edit was correct. So could you add the info which I added? Thanks Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change because you violated WP:CITEVAR when you changed all the cites to full title inline cites. Your changes need to conform to the existing citation format; you just can't unilaterally change them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know about that policy and thought it would more easier for people navigate but I get the problem about my edit. I also added info about ship being captured by germans and was renamed. Could you readd it? Changeworld1984 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1
The article Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallaudet D-2
The article Gallaudet D-2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallaudet D-2 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gallaudet D-2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Apology
Seeing your edit[], I thought I ought to apologise for dragging you into this discussion. Disputes in Wikipedia are, at best, tedious and unhelpful, which is why I rarely stick up for my point of view in such instances. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it; I chose to get involved };-) You just have to chose your battles carefully. While I certainly prefer a separate section for notes, they're not something I'm prepared to go to the mattresses over. I have my own issues over which I'm prepared to do just that, and have done so in the past, but they're quite limited in number to avoid energy-sucking imbroglios.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I am motivated by the 472 pages of large format book that I have been reading as a source for the article – at least that's what I keep telling myself.


 * Incidentally, are you someone who would know a good source for summarising the lengthy transition of naval tactics and technology for use of canon? I am thinking the history, in Northern Europe, goes from medieval use, through the invention of the gunport (allegedly in 1501 by someone from Brittany), to multiple canon with the largest pointing fore and aft, then a focus on a broadside of consistently sized canon (as in the Vasa, but I believe there is an English wreck from Elizabethan times with standardised canon – can't remember the name of the ship for the life of me), but still without the rapid rate of fire and boarding being the main method of resolving a fight. At a guess I'd say rapid broadsides depended on the line of battle, efficient signalling and larger gun crews which all arrived some time in the 18th century – but then my vague recollections are not sufficient. N. A.M. Rodger (1996) THE DEVELOPMENT OF BROADSIDE GUNNERY, 1450–1650, The Mariner's Mirror, 82:3, 301-324, DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1996.10656604 is the best source that I have at the moment. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a period that I know much about, but perhaps a couple of volumes of Conway's History of the Ship might serve? Try The Earliest Ships: The Evolution of Boats into Ships and The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. And perhaps these books on the Tudor Navy: The Navy of Henry VIII & Elizabeth I: English Naval Wafare, Exploration & Vessels during the 16th Century, Tudor Warships (1): Henry VIII’s Navy, The Warship Mary Rose: The Life & Times of King Henry VIII's Flagship, and The Tudor Warship Mary Rose might be of use. You'll definitely need something on the evolution of junks, cogs, caravels and carracks as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

What on earth is going on?
I'm a bit taken aback by what's happening at the Vasa article. I thought the issue of switching established ref standards and other largely subjective choices was something the community had decided to put to rest. I thought we had decided as a community to stick to live and let live-standard.

And now I'm getting ANI threats on my own talkpage for throwing my hands up in frustration over the whole thing. Peter Isotalo 06:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Beats the hell out of me. But that's one reason I decided not to try and engage the latest commenter in more detail. Personally, I'd refuse to engage him any further and focus on making the article more consistent since I don't think anyone's going to fight you over your preference for consolidated notes and citations anymore.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the advice. Appreciate the article input as well. Peter Isotalo 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

HSwMS articles
Hi, you recently updated a publish date for Whitley. However, a number of footnotes still point to the original date, landing eight articles on the harv error list. I trust you will update the footnotes, too. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I likely wouldn't have noticed until I began detailed work on the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A citation barnstar for you

 * Thanks--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Henry Macandrew
Hi, I don't know if I ever thanked you for finishing off the corrections to the Henry Macandrew GAN. I was having a rather terrible time back then and wasn't in a place to do anything about it. You could have just failed the nomination and moved on, so your diligence is highly appreciated. Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I figured it was something like that. IIRC, there really wasn't much more that needed to be done on it; no point in forcing you to re-nom it after a fail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

 * Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Fayetteville (1862)
Hello Sturmvogel 66 - Thank you for reviewing Battle of Fayetteville (1862). I will be out of town this Sunday, but back on Monday. TwoScars (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for reviewing Battle of Fayetteville (1862). TwoScars (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallaudet D-1
The article Gallaudet D-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallaudet D-1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gallaudet D-1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HSwMS Gotland (1933)
The article HSwMS Gotland (1933) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HSwMS Gotland (1933) for comments about the article, and Talk:HSwMS Gotland (1933)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HSwMS Clas Fleming
The article HSwMS Clas Fleming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HSwMS Clas Fleming for comments about the article, and Talk:HSwMS Clas Fleming/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

HMS Kipling (F91)
Thanks for the correction. The previous edit by the IPv6 looked like vandalism - I checked the infoboxes of Italian battleship Andrea Doria and Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, but not the text (and missed the "after reconstruction" updated details on the second ship). I wish people would use edit summaries! —Smalljim 15:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you were diligent to check their articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gotha WD.3
The article Gotha WD.3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gotha WD.3 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gotha WD.3/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Momo (1944)
The article Japanese destroyer Momo (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Momo (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Momo (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of LTG FD 1
The article LTG FD 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:LTG FD 1 for comments about the article, and Talk:LTG FD 1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 49p -- 49p (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 Military History Writing Contest
Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Ume (1944)
The article Japanese destroyer Ume (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Ume (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Ume (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Aston Martin Rapide at GAN
Hi Sturmvogel 66, could you possibly review the Aston Martin Rapide article (Its at GAN). best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm mostly focused on working on prepping my own GANs for the rest of the year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

75 mm kanon M/05 moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to 75 mm kanon M/05. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote the article as a one-line stub with a bibliography. How then is it unreferenced? It lacks citations, true, but what of it? I suggest that you self-revert these changes as inappropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks, Hawkeye--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru
The article Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

German Username
Hello, Im just wondering if you speak german ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Barely, I have to use a translation program--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And why did you choose a german Username ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always been a fan of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see and I thought you just may like Procellariidae Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've ever even seen one!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French destroyer Fougueux
The article French destroyer Fougueux you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Fougueux for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Fougueux/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GA list discrepancies
I started doing a reconcile and found a couple that seem to be missing from your list -- Admiral Spiridov-class monitor and Admiral Lazarev-class monitor. Am I right those are missing from your page? If so I'll see if I can pull together a quick list of articles I think are missing from your list so you can check them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed both of those. I'd appreciate any help that you can give.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, here's a list to look at -- I had a bit of trouble with some Unicode characters so I can't be sure all these are really missing, but I looked at half a dozen at random and they were all not on your list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 28 cm SK L/40 gun‎
 * Admiral Lazarev-class monitor
 * Admiral Spiridov-class monitor
 * Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy
 * Amiral Charner-class cruiser
 * Asama-class cruiser
 * Bellerophon-class battleship
 * BL 18-inch Mk I naval gun
 * Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)
 * Ekaterina II-class battleship
 * Etna-class cruiser
 * Fairey Spearfish
 * French battleship Condorcet
 * French battleship Iéna
 * French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (1899)
 * French cruiser Pothuau
 * French destroyer Chacal
 * French destroyer Léopard
 * French destroyer Panthère
 * French ironclad Marceau
 * German destroyer Z10 Hans Lody
 * German destroyer Z14 Friedrich Ihn
 * German destroyer Z15 Erich Steinbrinck
 * German destroyer Z37
 * German destroyer Z7 Hermann Schoemann
 * HMAS Australia (1911)
 * HMS Caradoc (D60)
 * HMS Cornwall (56)
 * HMS Curacoa (D41)
 * HMS Devonshire (39)
 * HMS Encounter (H10)
 * HMS Engadine (1911)
 * HMS Express (H61)
 * HMS General Craufurd
 * HMS Gloucester (1909)
 * HMS Gloucester (62)
 * HMS Grasshopper (T85)
 * HMS Hardy (H87)
 * HMS Hogue (1900)
 * HMS Hood
 * HMS Keith
 * HMS Lord Clyde
 * HMS Lord Warden
 * HMS Mashona
 * HMS Mohawk (F31)
 * HMS Nairana (1917)
 * HMS Natal
 * HMS Ocean (1863)
 * HMS Revenge (1892)
 * HMS Royal Oak (1892)
 * HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)
 * HMS Unrivalled
 * HMS Whelp (R37)
 * HMSAS Bloemfontein
 * HMSAS Natal
 * HMSAS Protea (1947)
 * HSwMS Thordön (1865)
 * Ilyushin Il-20 (1948)
 * Ilyushin Il-32
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Kaiyō
 * Japanese cruiser Ōyodo
 * Japanese destroyer Kuwa (1944)
 * Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)
 * John Ericsson-class monitor
 * MS Adzharistan
 * Number 13-class battleship
 * Pisa-class cruiser
 * Pumpkin bomb
 * Revenge-class battleship
 * Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I (1889)
 * Russian battleship Rostislav
 * Russian cruiser Admiral Makarov
 * Russian cruiser Bayan (1900)
 * Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi
 * Russian cruiser Vladimir Monomakh
 * Russian monitor Charodeika
 * Russian monitor Lava
 * Russian monitor Perun
 * Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov
 * Shikishima-class battleship
 * SMS Monarch
 * SMS Triglav (1913)
 * Soviet cruiser Krasny Kavkaz
 * Soviet cruiser Krasny Krym
 * Soviet destroyer Baku
 * Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936)
 * Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937)
 * Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940)
 * Soviet destroyer Shaumyan
 * Soviet destroyer Skory (1939)
 * Soviet destroyer Slavny (1939)
 * Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)
 * Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937)
 * Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1940)
 * Soviet destroyer Statny (1939)
 * Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)
 * Soviet destroyer Stroyny (1940)
 * Soviet destroyer Surovy (1940)
 * Soviet destroyer Svirepy
 * Soviet destroyer Tbilisi
 * Tsukuba-class cruiser
 * Tupolev Tu-80
 * USS Atlanta (1861)
 * USS Manhattan (1863)
 * Yakovlev Yak-19
 * Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj


 * Thanks for this! Not sure how your list was generated, but I just wanted to mention that I was the reviewer for Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883), not the nominator. Just want to be sure that nobody else's tally gets messed because of this kind of mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That appears to be because of this edit -- the bot doesn't know you were just reinstating a GA nomination by someone else. I've fixed it in the database.  If you run across any others like that, please let me so I can fix them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewed your list and I'm torn between being appalled that I missed about 50 of them or glad that I wasn't so full of myself that I'd spent the time to review my talk pages to verify all of them. This brings my count up to 975. Looks like I'll hit the magic 1000 threshold quite a bit earlier than I thought! Not at all sure how you could check for co-noms, but if it's not too much hassle it would be nice to get those included as well. Sadly I thought I'd reviewed more than I'd nominated, but that's seriously not the case any more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Conoms wouldn't show in my database at all, but is there anything you could use to define them? E.g. would you have always added your name to the GA subpage, with a note saying you were conominator?  If so it might be possible to write a Quarry query that finds them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always added either myself or my co-nominator to the GA subpage, as appropriate, to make sure that credit is properly split.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What we might be able to do then is to get a list of every GA subpage that you have edited, and subtract the lists that I keep of ones for which you are the reviewer or nominator. What's left should be the ones you conominated.  I'll see if I can do something like that -- probably later this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to figure out these little puzzles. And I'm in no rush to get an accurate accounting as it will at least a few months before I get 25 more GAs promoted.

I just had a nom promoted several hours ago, but the counter is still stuck at 939/939. I'm wondering if I initiate a review, will the counter tick up to 940/940? I'll hold off on that until I hear from you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It did finally update to 939/940.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 Military History Writing Contest

 * thanks, Donner!

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 20 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2019): "Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Take (1944)
The article Japanese destroyer Take (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Take (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Take (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible GA conoms
Hi -- as promised here's a list of GA articles that might be conominations. These are articles for which I don't have your name in the database as either nominator or reviewer, but for which you have edited a GA subpage. I don't need to know which ones are conoms, but if for some of these you are actually the nominator or reviewer, please let me know, since that would mean there's an error in the database.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:SMS Nix/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:USS Monitor/GA1 neither a reviewer nor nominator; I think that I was upset at the fellow who did nominate it as I felt it was premature
 * Talk:Vz. 24/GA1 just a random comment
 * Talk:HMS P222/GA1
 * Talk:SMS Aspern/GA1
 * Talk:SMS Zenta/GA1
 * Talk:SMS Goeben/GA1 comment
 * Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2 comment on the GAR
 * Talk:Robert Surcouf/GA1 2nd reviewer
 * Talk:HMS Sickle/GA1
 * Talk:Little egret/GA1 comment
 * Talk:SMS Breslau/GA1
 * Talk:HMS Anson (79)/GA1 comment
 * Talk:HMS Sportsman/GA1
 * Talk:Tupolev Tu-142/GA1 comment
 * Talk:Red Tail Squadron/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:HMS Stratagem/GA1
 * Talk:HMS Revenge (06)/GA1
 * Talk:Fort Saint Elmo/GA1 This was a mixup when the first reviewer started his review without me updating the GAN page before I started my own
 * Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2 commenter
 * Talk:Caldew (trawler)/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:Operation Flash/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:HMS Ramillies (07)/GA1
 * Talk:Robert A. Little/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:42 cm Gamma howitzer/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:HMS Simoom (P225)/GA1
 * Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA2 reviewer
 * Talk:Suleiman I of Persia/GA1 I took over this review
 * Talk:USS Mindoro (CVE-120)/GA1. 2nd reviewer
 * Talk:Friant-class cruiser/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:Battle of Nahrawan/GA1 I took this one over
 * Talk:HMS Splendid (P228)/GA1
 * Talk:SMS Salamander (1850)/GA1 not the reviewer
 * Talk:Bayern-class battleship/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:USS New Hampshire (BB-25)/GA1 took this one over
 * Talk:German torpedo boat T24/GA1
 * Talk:HMS Prince of Wales (53)/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:HMS Stonehenge (P232)/GA1
 * Talk:German torpedo boat T23/GA1
 * Talk:French battleship Bretagne/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Strashny/GA1
 * Talk:German torpedo boat T22/GA1
 * Talk:Japanese battleship Fusō/GA1
 * Talk:Canopus-class battleship/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:Russian destroyer Gadzhibey/GA1
 * Talk:German torpedo boat Albatros/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Stoyky (1938)/GA1
 * Talk:Battle of Little Blue River/GA1 not the reviewer
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik/GA1
 * Talk:Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)/GA2 GAR
 * Talk:Isa ibn al-Shaykh al-Shaybani/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:Conte di Cavour-class battleship/GA1
 * Talk:Andrea Doria-class battleship/GA1
 * Talk:Japanese battleship Yamashiro/GA1
 * Talk:Florida-class battleship/GA1 reviewer
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940)/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Razyaryonny (1941)/GA1
 * Talk:Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940)/GA1
 * Talk:Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940)/GA1
 * Talk:German involvement in the Spanish Civil War/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1 commenter
 * Talk:1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA2 commenter
 * I'll look through these after my nap--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for putting in the time to research these--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

32-pounders
Does Silverstone 2006's section on the naval ordinance contain something that would be useful as a direct statement of fact that the 32-pounder guns used by the navies of the time were generally smoothbore muzzel loading pieces? The various sources I have take this obvious information for granted so I'm having trouble finding a direct statement so that I don't get accused of original research down the road. (FWIW, I have Silverstone's 1989 work and have been reliant on google books preview for the updated 2006 version; the 1989 one lacks the discussion on ordinance). Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, pages xix-xx--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Does this work? Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That works, but I'd suggest using them as adjectives ahead of the subject; that way you don't need a whole sentence to describe them. But I like to cram a lot of info into each sentence. Lemme look at the rest of your changes and we can probably put this one to bed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate any positive or negative feedback at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS General Earl Van Dorn. I've taken an ironclad and a tinclad to ACR and FAC and am hoping to get a cottonclad through next. Hog Farm Talk 02:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blohm & Voss BV 40
The article Blohm & Voss BV 40 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blohm & Voss BV 40 for comments about the article, and Talk:Blohm & Voss BV 40/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
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) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zeppelin-Staaken L
The article Zeppelin-Staaken L you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zeppelin-Staaken L for comments about the article, and Talk:Zeppelin-Staaken L/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer Grozny (1936)
Hello, I have a question regarding the Soviet destroyer Grozny. I am currently looking into attacks made/claimed by Jagdgeschwader 5. According to two sources, JG 5 claimed to have damaged the destroyer on 8 May 1943 in the Kola Bay. The attack is not mentioned in the article, do your sources confirm the attack? Thanks for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of my sources mention any such attack.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Weird new aircraft articles
Hi someone suggested I ask for your help with a couple of new articles on military aircraft. There are many issues with them but the one I’d appreciate your view on is the use of offline references to various books. Some of the works cited simply don’t exist at all and were generated by an LLM. Others do exist but aren’t about the aircraft in question. There may be passing mentions, perhaps more, or perhaps nothing. Any steer you could give me would be greatly appreciated. The articles are Bartel BM-3 and Focke-Wulf W 7. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ok well both already gone to draft so nothing to do for now thanks. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!
Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at Talk:John S. McCain Sr./GA1? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)