User talk:Sturmvogel 66/Archive 6

March contest
Congrats on an easy win! Usually Rupert and I verify, tally and hand out awards for this but I'll be away for the w/e starting this afternoon so given you're responsible for about half the damned entries, perhaps you can take my place this month... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do everybody's but mine!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sturm. All the entries are verified. I've initialised the April contest and archived the old ones. The last tasks are to tally up the results, update the scoreboard, write up the newsletter and hand out the awards. I've tallied up the results offline in a spreadsheet and will update the scoreboard, newsletter and handout the awards a bit later (I have to go offline for a bit). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, its all done now. Thanks for your help and congrats on winning. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks guys, quick work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

German WWII destroyers
Good to see somebody is finally taking care of creating those articles. I created three of them a while ago because I thought it to be rather unusual and sad that there was no articles on those resonably well know ships but its not my usual field of work. Calistemon (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how far I'll take them, but I agree that it's about time that they each had their own article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like some help, I own some of the relevant books. Manxruler (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free so long as we avoid bumping heads with edit conflicts. I'm going to work on Z9 today so feel free to work on Z5 to Z8. Just let me know which ever one you're working on here and I'll do the same. I plan to get all up to speed within the 5-day DYK limit so I'll be pretty active trying to meet that goal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll probably have time tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Today's project is Z8 Bruno Heinemann.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian ironclads
Hi, Sturmvogel. Unless I'm mistaken, you're the editor who wrote the articles about Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré and Brazilian ironclad Brasil. I added a couple of pictures to both articles. I believe that will help you bring them to Good or Featured articles, isn't? P.S.: I'll add later a picture to Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the pictures, but I need more information on their activities after the war to improve them further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
Thank you for your reviews of RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge. Hopefully RAF Uxbridge will be coming along within the next couple of days. Harrison49 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive


On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
 * 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
 * 423 GA nominations passed.
 * 72 GA nominations failed.
 * 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Hood]] ==

About the HMS Hood, the tv series Dogfights, episode "Sink the Bismarck", the narrator says "As Hood slides beneath the waves, her forward turret fires a final defiance salvo before slipping into darkness". AOCJedi (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That really isn't good enough. Find a book that says that that happened and we can discuss it. TV is all about sensationalism.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that episode also, and it does say that about Hood, but I have to agree with Sturmvogel on this one; a television series that has problems keeping its facts straight does not a reliable source make... Magus732 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

French cruiser Sully
Hello

I just translate your article French cruiser Sully. My problem is that its really diffrent than Gloire class cruiser. Diffrent armour, diffrent previous version (Gueydon vs Dupleix). Can you compare that article and try to fix diffrences? PMG (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also - what power it have? 20,500 ihp or shp? Because in text there is like this and like this. 02:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, it should have been ihp. I've fixed it now. I'll have to check my references, but I'm pretty sure that she's counted as one of the Gloire-class cruisers, even if she had a different armor scheme.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any changes? PMG (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything I have shows her a member of the Gloire class. What's your source for believing differently?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare French cruiser Sully and Gloire class cruiser. Its just internal problem on en.wiki - I don`t have sources. But if Sully is a GA then its just strange for me that nobody compare that ship with class article. Difrrent Displacement, diffrent engine power, torpedo tubes, belt and deck armor. I am not talking about lenght and beam because its probably just problem with conversion. So, yeah - 99,9 % that Sully is ok if you have sources (and you have so many GA that for sure you have). But then - nobody compare it with class article? PMG (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

FTC
Hey Sturm. I was planning on closing some nominations for FTC but I don't have any time to close them right now. Can you do some of the closings for the week? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can get to them on Thursday or Friday.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z8 Bruno Heinemann
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank, just emphasize that no technical qualifications are needed; you don't need to know the MOS inside and out. Just read the article and see if it reads well, etc. If you do know the MOS that's a plus, but hardly necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z9 Wolfgang Zenker
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary
Just letting you know I'm getting started on this. Btw, how's school? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that you were already at work. School's ok; just want to get over with at this point. Still got about 3+ weeks to go, but no big tests or projects to complete so time's just dragging. I'm curious to see how my 14 hour days twice a week for summer semester will work out. There's a three hour break in the afternoon, so I'm hoping it won't be so bad.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're hard-core. Are you going for a BA? - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I'll finish the AA in December and then transfer to get my BA, hopefully in only two or three semesters with all my transfer credits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yak-140Prototype.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Yak-140Prototype.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Exmouth
Hi Sturm, I don't know if your forgot to save changes but HMS Exmouth is still the same and the changes from the GA review still need doing  Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I did forget to save.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Plover (M26)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chat?
Sturm, I'll be on irc for a couple of days (as Dank). Ping me please when you have a minute, or leave a note on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm don't have any chat software. But feel free to call me on Tuesday or Thursday.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll call Tuesday, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look forward to talking with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're around ... good time to call? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

21-inch torpedoes
Sorry, Sturmvogel. I got a bit confused about 21-inch torpedoes (they are of course 533mm). I was getting confused with British 18 inch torpedoes, which are of course 450mm, or 17.72 inches, in diameter. Shem (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. I was getting ready to ask you what your source was as nothing I can find mentions the exact diameter of the British 21-inch torpedoes, length and most other parameters, but not diameter. I think that I've already changed them back while generally editing the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit of a prawn, actually. Not my normal style. I did a check - any I've changed have now been changed back. If you're online now you might care to wade in at Talk:Corvette. Your opinion (either way) would be welcome. Shem (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Diamond (H22)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SMS Radetzky
Hey there Sturm. Can I bring your attention to this thread for a moment? If you could help in any way, I'd be greatly appreciative ;)

All the best-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifications for US Military Aircraft
I have started a discussion on User:Ken keisel's proposal to standardise on a single source for specification of US Military aircraft here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Action of 28 January 1945
Hi Sturmvogel, I've responded to all your comments on this article's ACR. Are you prepared to support the article's promotion to A class? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Military history project ACRs for closure
Hi, sorry to bother you. We are currently having trouble finding an uninvolved co-ordinator to close a few ACRs. If you get a free moment, could you please take a look at the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and close one if you are uninvolved? Cheers! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The bell of HMS Renown
Hi Sturmvogel 66. This is my first go at using talk, but if it works it's a better way of having a dialogue than leaving comments on edits.

Take your point about verification, and I've been trying to turn up some evidence - preferably photographic, but so far no joy. I will keep trying! It would be nice eventually to add something to such a well researched and informative page, so I hope I'm successful.

For the (as yet unproven!) record: I was a pupil at RMS Bushey from 1972 to 1975. The bell was hung on a purpose built frame on the dining hall stage with a small information panel bout the ship. From my memory of that panel I would be certain it was the Battlecruiser scrapped in 1948 as the photograph was very similar to that at the head of the Wikipedia page (and nothing like the other HMS Renown you referred me to as portrayed on its page).

The school closed in 1977 and I don't know where the bell went. The buildings have been converted to luxury flats and in 2000 any old boys who were inclided had one last chance to walk around the site. That included lunch in the dining hall, and the bell was not there.

My old craft master has become something of an unofficial historian of the school and if anyone knows the whole story, he will. I will endeavour to trace him and report back!

Meantime, thanks for the effort you've put into the Renown page - that bell always stuck in my memory, and it was great to learn a bit about the ship it came from. Tykesage (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that you can source your memory as that would be a nice addition. Also see if you can trace the bell's fate after your school closed. Maybe the National Maritime Museum might know something? Maybe not, but it might be worthwhile to check out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66...some progress...the 2011 copy of my old school magazine arrived yesterday and included a photograph of the president of the Old Masonians' Association ringing the bell at the start of last year's Association dinner. The event was held in the Royal Masonic School for Girls' dining room. It would seem the bell was moved there after the boys' school closed. The girls' school is in Rickmansworth and I will contact them for the citation you need, and will try and get an original of the photograph to send you also. Best regards Tykesage (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'll look forward to seeing the material. Please be sure to have the photographer release the photo under a Commons licence to avoid any copyright issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66. I now have the photo and the owner's consent to use it. Being a novice at this kind of thing, how do I get it to you? I don't see an attach icon anywhere....

The bell was, as I suspected, moved to the girls' school when the boys' school closed, and the picture (when you get it) shows the bell hung in the same frame as back in the 1970's together with a picture of the ship.Tykesage (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z11 Bernd von Arnim
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

MV New Flame
Hello

I am not sure what are rules about GA in en.wiki but for me MV New Flame is really outdated and it shouldn`t have GA sign. What you think? PMG (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started the process to review its status at Talk:MV New Flame/GA1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z12 Erich Giese
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Overdue
Awards applenty you may have, but this one seems to be overdue.
 * Thank you. That's very kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z13 Erich Koellner
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt
Hello! Your submission of German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Armoured trains of Poland
You asked two questions during the review. Regarding the second one, I believe there are next to no sources discussing it; at the very least, in my gathering of materials for this article (I wrote it first on pl wiki), I found no information on how the trains were used after capture (anyway, in '39, only one surrendered, so presumably most of the remaining wagons were destroyed in combat or upon abandonment). You also asked for "more information on combat operations". I believe that just like on pl wiki this information belongs in the subarticles on individual trains, not in the main article. I plan on eventually translating all those articles, but I don't believe that the article would benefit from doubling or tripling in size which would occur when we add the detailed info on the 2-3 weeks operations of all 10+ trains in '39. I am of course open to further discussion, which I'd strongly suggest should take place on Talk:Armoured trains of Poland (and feel free to copy this message of mine there). Thanks for your review, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt
Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Faa di Bruno 1917 bis.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Faa di Bruno 1917 bis.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ring ring
Up for a phone call? - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, any time. I have no life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just tried with the number I have, "I'm sorry, this mail box has not been set up by the subscriber". It worked before. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try it again, my roomie forgot to plug the phone back in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Zrínyi
Hey Sturm. Even though this ACR has ended, mind replying to my responses to the issues that you raised so I can fix the ones that are still left over and re-nominate it at a later time? To be honest, I was not ready to take this to ACR when Buggie nominated it but I hope that this failed ACR will provide a stepping stone to a future successful one.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You dealt with most of the issues that I raised. I'll have to take a look and see what you didn't get to or didn't understand what I meant. I hope that Buggie takes a look because there was a lot of style-type issues that I raised that probably apply to other articles that y'all have done together. It would be smart to take care of these sorts of things before your next ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and don't worry, I'll take your advice. When I get around to nominating the other ships for an ACR, I'll comb through them for the same issues that were brought up on this one. Hopefully Buggie will do the same.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for CSS Missouri
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A question regarding notes
Hey Sturm. Would it be acceptable if I were to delete the first note from the SMS Zrinyi article? While it is technically true, one could argue that I used original research in adding it is as the connection that it reveals, it not mentioned in any books that I've come across. Furthermore, the note technically does not serve any real purpose. It is established that the ship is a pre-Dreadnought BB. And it is also established that the ship was launched in 1910....-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for it, but it's not incorrect. You should also probably delete the bit about the last class of pre-dreadnoughts built as that's best suited for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Warship
Hey Sturm, I stumbled across this and I was wondering two things: how similar is the Argentine naval buildup article to this copy online (it's in the 2002-03 edition, and I'd rather not pay $95 for it!), and is there anything important in the 2006 edition about Almirante Latorre? Many thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, you're in luck; I've got both volumes. Lemme check how the online article compares to the one in the 2002-03 volume tomorrow. The '06 article just mentions that Vickers had plans to rearm the ship with 4-inch DP guns, but nothing became of the plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I looked online and got scared before I remembered that you had some. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, is there anything in Scheina or anywhere else about Chilean efforts to repurchase Eagle/Amirante Latorre after the end of the war?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I used : Brown, David. "HMS Eagle." In Profile Warship, edited by Antony Preston, 249–272. Windsor, United Kingdom: Profile Publishing, 1973. . . in Almirante Latorre-class battleship. He had quite a bit on it. Somervell has some too. I think I found Brown online, but I don't know where I saved it. I have to run to work but I'll try to find it tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got Brown, but I was hoping for more from the Chilean side. Can you send me the Somervell article? I have limited access to JSTOR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Chilean Navy's (former) site has basically nothing besides what the ship was going to be named before "Almirante Cochrane". Schenia has virtually nothing aside from dates. This looks like it could have a lot (search for "acorazados" = battleship in Spanish), but translating it is going to be slow given that I don't read Spanish and can't copy/paste into Google. :-) Somervell has a bit on the tussle over Chile's acquisition of Latorre and attempt to have Britain convert Cochrane back into a battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't really see much of use in Somervell, but I've compared the online article to the published one and they're pretty much identical. Minor variations in wording and such, but the main points seem to be the same. The online one might be an earlier draft, but I can scan the latter one for you if you'd like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he doesn't have anything besides 1920 stuff. It'd be great if you could scan it so I can cite correct page numbers from a published source, but don't rush to do it. :-) Lecen just told me he bought a book on the dreadnought arms race, so when he's finished reading it I'll ask him if it has anything on Cochrane. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and my book shelf just reminded me that we need to get Arizona to FA by the 70th anniversary! Lemme know when you want to get going (assuming you still want to collaborate on it). I have Stillwell and can get another book or two if we need. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Once I finish up with Eagle, I'll get started on the technical stuff, but you'll have most of the operational history on your plate as I have only DANFS for her activities before the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I just ordered Hone's Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939 and Jones' U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I so with Stillwell and The New York Times I think we'll have enough on that end. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad news: Hone has literally nothing. Good news: images from NARA! See GLAM/NARA/Requests. I'm going to work on cropping/rotating/converting them to jpg tomorrow or asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've stuck a link to here from a 1942 edition of Flight, which may satisfy the requirement for a source needed for a non-free rationale, although it may need some tweaking.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Il-18aerial.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Il-18aerial.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinic
Jason, This is the ship I was talking about: "Originally commissioned by the East German People's Navy as the Rudolf Eglehofer, the Hiddensee (corvette) is a Tarantul I class corvette built at the Petrovsky Shipyard, located near the Soviet city of St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad)." fro the Battleship Cove website. Excellent mtg, glad we met. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It was a good meeting. I'll have to let you know next time I'm working on US post-war aircraft as you might have something useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dupuy de Lome
Am very glad to see you setting about this ship! I have been wondering for months about how she fits into the development of armoured cruisers more generally. Something doesn't add up for me - she is often hailed as a great breakthrough, but she was obsolete very soon after launch and differs more or less completely from the armoured cruisers of the late 1890s. I hope the work you're doing sheds some light on my conundrum ;-) The Land (talk)
 * I wish I had more on the ship's design rationale, but my source only has a few scant paragraphs so it will be more descriptive than I'd prefer. Don't think many of the earlier belted cruisers, with the exception of some of the Russian ships, had turrets, which may well be her main claim to fame. Still got a couple of more generic cruiser references to look through in the (probably vain) hope that they describe her design rationale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy
Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldenburg
Hey Sturm, I wondered if you might be able to check the German edition of Groner on SMS Oldenburg (1884) for me - the English version gives a range of the main battery as "5700–8800m", which doesn't make sense. I'm hoping you might be able to answer the question as you did with the "layers/strakes" translation error. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good # in the English edition. It correlates with the 26cm gun used in the Sachsen-class ships. I guess that Krupp took a while to develop gun technology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist task force expansion
Hi Sturm :) Per this discussion the South American task force, of which you are a coordinator, has now been expanded to cover Central America as well. The new task force can be found at WikiProject Military history/Central and South American military history task force. I've left a redirect at the old title but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia
Hi, just a note that, unless I'm missing something, your hook for Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia is incomplete. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  03:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did rather skip that part, didn't I? Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011
Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on Blockhaus d'Éperlecques
Thanks for your comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques; I've actioned the various issues that you raised. Please take another look to see if that satisfies your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further feedback! I think I've sorted out all the points you raised... Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ironclad Pervenets
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked a couple of weeks ago about an alleged ramming of HMS Warspite by the Pervenets on my usertalk page; note my reply in the same place. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia
EncycloPetey (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Endymion
I've recently expanded the HMS Endymion (1865) article, which you created. You gave as one of the sources. Do you still have that journal, and is there anything in it which could be used to further expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!
Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by GLAM/NMM to find out more and help suggest ways of moving forward. Look forward to some MILHIST input. :-) The Land (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know/Suicide_by_hanging
Seriously? Seriously? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my obvious conflict of interest here but...seriously? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How callous do you want me to sound?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, be my guest. I didn't mean to come across as so rude earlier so my apologies again. I was just rather shocked, and I honestly can't understand for the life of me so any explanation would be appreciated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 79 radar
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 3 August 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 August 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 6, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. 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 .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 

HMS Lion was a battlecruiser of the Royal Navy, the lead ship of her class. Lion served as the flagship of the Grand Fleet's battlecruisers throughout World War I, except when she was being refitted or under repair. She sank the German light cruiser SMS Köln (1909) during the Battle of Heligoland Bight and served as Vice Admiral Beatty's flagship at the battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland. She was so badly damaged at the first of these battles that she had to be towed back to port by the battlecruiser HMS Indomitable (1907) and was under repair for more than two months. During the Battle of Jutland she suffered a serious propellant fire that could have destroyed the ship if not for the bravery of Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey, who posthumously received the Victoria Cross for having ordered the magazine flooded. She spent the rest of the war on uneventful patrols in the North Sea. She was put into reserve in 1920 and sold for scrap in 1924 under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. (more...)

Good Article promotion
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 281 radar
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 281 radar
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

15 cm naval gun
Thanks for your reply here (I've just seen it). My question was prompted by these edits; which I reverted, but it got me thinking. The distinction between the nominal and the actual calibre is a good one; sources for ships etc. generally use the nominal calibre, but a reference to the actual calibre makes sense on the gun article. I’ve taken the liberty of clarifying it on the gun page (here) in case it comes up again (if you are OK with that, I’ll fix the other 15cm gun pages the same way). Xyl 54 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW the Calibre page notes the distinction between the bore diameter (across the lands) and the groove diameter; is that what the difference is here? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I doubt it because the 20cm gun has a bore diameter of 20.3 cm, which matches the treaty standard of 8 inches. Groove diameter is not often referenced so I can't say one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Class A Review for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment
I have responded to your comment here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional edits have been made to follow MOS, please rereview.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional edits have been made, including de-bundling, please rerereview. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional edit made per request. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IL-22
Nice job there, but it leads me to two connections, the Heinkel He 343 and Ilyushin Il-28. Would you mind looking at each of these articles; I do not have the resources at hand to work on them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I have the resources to work on both, but the Il-28 article really needs a whole lot of work that I'm not sure that I feel up to tackling at the moment. I might just fill out the development history section and leave the rest for later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Conways
Hey Sturm, would you be able to scan me the page on the pocket battleships sometime? I imagine it'll be of at least some use in writing those articles. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you really ought to get the Koop and Schmolke book on them for all the real poop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OSU has a copy of it (it's over $150 on Amazon) but I won't be on campus for about a month (and thus won't be able to check anything out until then). I guess I could stop in and use it in the library computer lab, I wouldn't need to check it out to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA in pl.wiki
Hello

I want thank you for your work on French cruiser Sully. I translated them to pl.wiki and get GA. This is probably best source of information in Polish language.

Thanks for your work.

PMG (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood (51)
If you've responded to WSC's points in the FAC, you might want to ask him to have another look. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thanks for the reminder; I hadn't even noticed his latest comment. I've also just asked Nikkimaria to take another look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Crusader (H60)
Gday. There seems to be an inconsistency in HMS Crusader (H60). In particular in the lead it says "She served as a convoy escort during the battle of the Atlantic until sunk by the German submarine U-91 on 14 September 1942," however in the info box it says: "Fate: Sunk by U-210, 14 September 1942." I'm not sure which is right so I'm hoping you might be able to fix this. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Belfast (C35)
This one is past its sell-by date, and I can't tell if he's dealt with your concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Lemme look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for C and D class destroyer
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Could you venture a guess as to the type of German gun photographed at Fort Napoleon, Ostend? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28 cm SKL/35 guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good guess! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They were not SKLs though. All sources that give a model say 1887. The wheel mounts surely look like Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of my sources says SKL/35, another says 1887. What is certain that the gun in the other photo and the one in photo on the Fort Napoleon page are not the same. Look at the barrels; the one at Ft. Napoleon is smooth, but the other one is built up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw here that another source in Dutch said SK, but I'm not very confident that it is correct. The barrels seem to have had 4 hoops if you look carefully at . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * p. 166: "The Belgian coast defense system included the following major caliber armament : five 38-cm guns, four 30.5-cm guns, twenty 28-cm guns, in addition to the older and less effective guns of Battery Hindenburg and some 28-cm mortars." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the barrels don't look anything alike as that second photo that you reference shows very small shoulders of the hoops and matches the one on the Ft. Napoleon page much better. My source for the 1887 reference is a 1920 US Army report and is probably the most accurate reference available, barring German archival records.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Russian Krupp barrel has a different hoop disposition. Russia was the first big customer of Krupp naval guns (bigger than Germany at first), ordering 76 pieces of 28-cm (L/25 it seems) in 1869. Krupp designed and started to produce its own carriages for big naval guns at this time. I have this from the Krupp official history 1812-1912 p. 127. I found a conference paper saying something about the H battery as well, and added it to the article with a quote. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I discovered that the 1997 (English) conference paper was written by Aleks A. M. Deseyne, the same author whose writing was used in the luftschutzbunker-forum.de to claim the guns were SK, but based on Deseyne earlier writing in Dutch. Either Deseyne corrected himself in the mean time, or (far more likely) the forum poster read him wrong. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Kadir and Reshadieh class
Hey Sturm. A while ago I got back to work on Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir and Reshadieh class battleship. Could you look them over for me and tell me what they have left till they would pass a GAN? Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to leave you hanging, but I'll look them over this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nothing. I'm still trying to read through Jappalang's peer review, kind of confusing for me, so I'm in no hurry. Buggie111 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruiser as small battleship
My point was that those ships were smaller than the other battleships that were their contemporaries: Lion was heavier and longer than Iron Duke, Derfflinger was heavier and longer than Konig. The longest ships on both sides at Jutland were battlecruisers. By the thirties, all battleships were fast by WWI standards, so the speed distinction no longer seemed to apply, no battlecruiser was as fast as Iowa. By the thirties it seems that the term battlecruiser was reserved for battleships a little smaller than most others of the period. In other words, my point is valid. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Sovereign
Hey Sturm, I've been trying to cobble together a half-way decent article on HMS Royal Sovereign (05), and I wondered if you have any material that might be useful. If not, no worries either. I'm probably running into the same problem you had with some of the battlecruisers over lack of information for late-WWI and post-war activities. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, I've got tons of technical stuff on her and her sisters; all the design history stuff that you could ever want. Operational stuff, not so much, other than whatever Rohwer will show. There's a relatively new book out by Peter C. Smith on the class that hopefully fills in the gap you mentioned, so try to ILL it. If you'd like, we can collaborate and I'll do the technical stuff. Just let me know whenever you want to get started. I can use a break, I'm getting a little burnt out on British destroyers (only six more to go to finish off the G and H destroyer topic!). I've got a history of Rodney, though, that I need to use before I have to return it, so that's a little higher up the queue. And now that I think about it, we should probably work together on Breslau as well as I've got some good stuff on her service with the Turks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've already added a lot of the technical stuff. That's fine, there's some refit/modernization stuff that I can add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Rohwer's a little light (and limited to WWII, unfortunately, which I'm not having that much trouble with), especially because some of it's not viewable. As to Smith, the closest one to me is at the University of Chicago - I don't know how far my ILL will reach, though I imagine that it should have useful information (it's 200+ pages long on just these five ships). I suppose the least I can do is try to request it and see what happens. My main concern is time on my part, given that grad school is starting in a week. I'm sort of expecting to be largely done with article writing at that point, but we'll see how things turn out. I could certainly help you out with Breslau if you wanted to work on that sometime in the short term. And nice work powering through all those destroyers, by the way. And yeah, I got enough of the basic technical stuff from Conway's. Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your ILL reach is likely better than mine as you hopefully don't have to pay to borrow from Chicago and the Ivies like I do now. God, I really miss Regenstein (Chicago's) Library! It's a pity that I didn't start editing until after I left town. So it then really becomes a time issue for you. I suspect that you'll still be able to edit, but maybe only an article or so a week, once school starts. Request it and see how things go, I can probably fill in any holes that you've left as I've got my own copy of Rohwer and I can probably request Smith, although I'm not paying $25.00 to borrow it if it's only at Chicago and the Ivies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got McLaughlin, which has a little. Buggie111 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've got it as well so that bit will be covered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've requested it through OSU's ILL - we'll see what happens. The last time I did that, they just bought the book outright as it was relatively new - maybe they'll do the same here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The book finally came in today, I should probably have some time this weekend to do some work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I've still got some modernization stuff to add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my request without reviewing it?
Here. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It had already been assessed as B class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see another editor had already done a review. Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Titan's cross nomination
Hello,. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a different approach
Dear Sturmvogel 66, I noticed your many template messages left for Ken keisel. Can I suggest a different approach. How about a human looking message that some of his additions appear to violate policy and then you can keep an ongoing list underneath it? There is no need to add a template for every example you find. Doing so appears a bit hostile. I'm sure you don't mean to appear hostile, which is why I'm asking you to consider a more personable approach. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've run into Ken before and it hasn't been pretty. I was checking out the Yak articles before beginning work on them and noticed the copyright issues. I'll not start a WP:CCI on him as I wasn't checking up on him specifically, but you might want to persuade him to rewrite any other instances where he's borrowed a bit too liberally before somebody else notices and does start an investigation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you consider the information to be accurate wouldn't the best approach be to simply re-edit it until you no longer consider it a violation? I don't see how it benefits the article to delete 50% of its information simply because of how it is worded. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan on rewriting the articles anyways so no information will be lost, but the point is that you shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff at all. A lot of time it's easier to write from scratch than to rewrite existing text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but deleting all the information from one source, and the source, gives the impression that you are challenging the validity of that source. You deleted nearly 50% of the content of these articles, and what is left is not terribly coherent because of the omissions. Why not make minor changes to maintain the integrity of the articles until you do your re-write? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I deleted all references to Gunston, so I wasn't challenging the source. I agree that the remaining text isn't terribly coherent, but that's because I was drawn to check on the other early Yak fighter articles in case they had the same problems. It might have been better to work on one at a time, deleting the text and rewriting it entirely, but I thought it was better to delete all the copy vios that I found first. I'll rewrite the articles in the next couple of weeks as I find time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I will work on them a bit to keep the information intact. I don't want them to sit in this condition for long. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, just be sure to put things into your own words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. I had changed the original text quite a bit, but some things, likes modifications to the airframe, are hard to modify without becoming awkward. There's only so many ways to describe adding a nose wheel. I think you get my meaning. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know; I've struggled with that problem quite a bit myself. Sometimes the simplest thing to do is not to go into as much detail as the book does. Forex, Green and Gordon give a detailed description of the nosewheel of the Yak-17, IIRC, and how it was housed. I'd just say that it was not steerable, lacked brakes and was housed in an external fairing because there wasn't any room under the engine. Remember that you just can't change the order of the clauses in the original text; you have to limit your use of the original text to only a couple of words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK review
Hi Sturmvogel 66, just letting you know that I provided an alternative hook as requested. --Elekhh (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done Storm. BTW, can you check back at the Su-33 ACR as I believe Phil has actioned your tags in the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MilHist IRC
Hi Sturmvogel 66, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011
Thx, Buggie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Delight
It's passed. Buggie111 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrected year of publication
Hi. I changed that because books.google gives 1991; Amazon, too. I see worldcat says 1990... Anyway it seemed reasonable that it was published the year-after, looking back on 1990. —Portuguese Man o' War 00:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bad guess, but I have a copy. Warship is generally published the year given in the title, unlike many other books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll try and not do that again. fyi, I was wondering about 'volume' being 1990; seemed more a part of the title... The bolding of the volume is what caught my eye. —Portuguese Man o' War 00:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I treat it as a serial since it's an annual publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will leave that sort of thing be, then...

Could you look at something else? It's related to the NavWeaps cites: User talk:Gadget850. I asked Gadget850 about these and part of what he just said relates to the work/publisher, so I'd like your input. The 2008a, 2008b, c, d approach he's suggesting is certainly doable, although I don't know if a date will always be available. Or if DiGiulian is always the author. Would you prefer these by NavWeaps Year, DiGiulian Year (both with a,b,c,d...) or as NAVWEAPS Long-Title Possibly-with-Square-Brackets? I'll go with whatever as long as it works. I see the approach I was pursuing as clearest. I'm going to reply there, next, referring to here. —Portuguese Man o' War 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ↑↑↑ and reply on my talk. —Portuguese Man o' War 06:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)
I really don't know why I'm the only support so far; as much as you've done on other people's articles, I would think at least one person would stop by to review. I'm open to suggestions on the best way to ask around for help. FWIW, I think I'm seeing a pattern: articles that have been at A-class recently are more likely to get reviewed at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in, I think you may have a point there, Dan. Anyway, haven't reviewed a ship for a while, so it's on my list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was getting around to thinking about sending a reminder out to the usual suspects, but, as usual, hadn't gotten around to it yet. Still gotta work on my responses to Akagi comments as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

K. Keisel
I noticed your question on Sarek's Talk page. I had the same idea a few months ago - see this Talk page excerpt - but little came of it, I'm sure because of the press of other matters. Perhaps you would find some of my earlier (if limited) effort to be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Crap, I'll try to find some time to poke through his contributions this week and see what's to be seen. I'll probably stick mostly to the aviation stuff as that's my area of expertise. If you want to look through the other ones, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was steering clear of aviation b/c I don't know anything about it, so that works for me. Otherwise though my skills in this area are pretty rudimentary and what I've already found may be as much as I do.  More broadly, the most disturbing aspect is what seems to be a completely cavalier attitude toward the whole subject - either "I rejiggered it a little so it's fine", or, "if someone thinks it's a problem still, they can fix it."  JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI apropos of this: ANI and CCI.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies
Hey Sturmvogel 66, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)
years are optional. You might try setting your editbox prefs to larger than 25 rows, too. Bye.

convenience link.

—Portuguese Man o' War 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My prefs are set for 40 rows, thank you very much. Vertical refs are still far too annoying because I can't see all of them at once.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Phil.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Royal Naval Air Squadrons
Sturmvogel, I reverted your edit at Template:Royal Naval Air Squadrons, since 824 squadron is already in the template as an active squadron. Please let me know if I did a wrong thing! Shem (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'd missed that the squadrons were segregated by active/inactive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png
Thanks for uploading File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Should be alright now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was getting frustrated as that's not one of the menu choices and I'd forgotten about adding it afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - at this point, I don't even bother with the drop down menu, I just go to an image I already uploaded and copy the templates. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just passed C and D class destroyer for GA, but I did leave one comment on the review page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll check it out. I'm just settling in to review your list of German ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/If Day/archive1
I think the delegates are looking for image reviews to start off with a bold Image review. Also ... even though a single-word "support" from you means a lot, I'm concerned that others will see that and be tempted to do the same, which won't in general help much. If you don't want to offer any specific comments, it would help to say something like: "Support. I read this for A-class and didn't get around to supporting, but it looks like the comments above have covered everything." That is, it would help a lot to have some kind of acknowledgment that you're familiar with the article or with the FAC comments or both. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Larger GT/FTs subsuming smaller ones
I'll take off the topics that were merged in on the armored cruisers one, that somehow slipped by me on promotion. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 22 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)
 * Looks like the bot was a day late and a dollar short... ;) (congrats, BTW!) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't even know until it was semi-protected a few hours before its appearance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A thought
Hey Sturm, I just reviewed HMS Comet (H00) for GA, and in passing, checked the dab page at HMS Comet. Turns out the link from the dab to the article was wrong (it had a year dab, not the pennant) - you might want to check the dabs as you write the articles to make sure they're pointing to the right place. I fixed this one, but it will probably crop up elsewhere so we should keep an eye on it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there was a big move a while back to dab RN WWII ships by pennant # rather than by year, which is stupid because the pennant #s changed several times during the war. But it seems that there are still some old pointers floating about. I'll have to try and remember to check them out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Empress
Apologies for the edit conflict, it was unintentional. There's always the inuse for making a series of edits. Had I seen that message displayed, I've have kept clear. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I should have used it, but it's such a obscure little ship that I didn't even think about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click on the words "or worked upon" on my user page, you'll see my "watchlist" in action. That's how I spotted that a change had been made to the article. I had a quick look and spotted the year had been left out, so naturally made the relevant edit. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian BB list
Regarding this, I"d like to tell you that I"ve been working on and off at List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union, which should encompass both pre-dread and dreadnoughts. I myself don't think a split (like the RN lists) is necesary, but I'd like to hear you ideas. (Note:My assumption of your intent to continue work on the dread list is solely off of you adding your name to it, if it's just to claim content creation, then disregard the above.) Buggie111 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Perseus (R51)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Argus (I49)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎
The article HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎ you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎ for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself?

DYK for HMS Raven II
Thanks for supporting the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Breslau
Hey Sturm, just thought I'd let you know that I've started some work on SMS Breslau. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, great. I'll let you do your thing and take a look at it tomorrow. I still need to scan that ironclad stuff for you; I'll get to that this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm just about done on my end. Have at it. FWIW, the article should qualify for DYK if you want to nominate it after you're done. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Anne (1915)
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi
Materialscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona
Hey Sturm, long time no talk. Hope life is treating you well. I left a message at WT:MILHIST, but I wanted to apologize personally for not finishing this article. I always meant to get back to it when I had more time, but never did. I put up a request for assistance on the Milhist talk page and I hope we'll get something out of it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I never really put a whole lot of work into it; just couldn't muster much enthusiasm my own self. I saw your note and maybe I'll request Stillwell again and try to finish it off with whoever else is interested. I hope that you've been able to put some more time into your South American dreadnought race article as Eagle was finally promoted and I can finish off Agincourt almost anytime. You've gotten most of the other articles to FA already and it would be very cool to skip GTC and go straight to FTC. You may have noticed that I've added a bunch of technical data to the Lexington-class BC article; once I get Friedman's cruiser book I'll see what else I need to add as there's a very good article on the planning for the ships in the latest Warship. Then I plan to submit it for FAC as a co-nom with you and whoever else worked on it if y'all are agreeable. I find that I'm pretty psyched by how close we are to the BC FTC and am focusing a fair amount of effort working to bring those individual articles up to FAC. Given the speed of the whole FAC process, I'm not in any hurry as it will be six months or more to finish off all the FACs, but I'm not letting any moss gather either. We're gonna need to have that discussion about if the Alaska's count as BCs or not well before then for planning purposes. Maybe over the holidays when you're not so busy. RL sucks sometimes, I know, so don't sweat things over here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, motivation was the other half of my problem. Stillwell is awesome for his appendix with the ship's chronology, but realistically speaking Arizona didn't do much of note from 1918 to the 1930s. I'm waiting for User:Lecen to add info from a Portuguese-language book to the dreadnought race article, but it's otherwise ready for FAC whenever. I will add the info I have on Agincourt's Brazilian history either during Thankstaking or after this semester ends. The reason I never took the Lexington article to FAC was that I was never able to get ahold of Friedman, so I'm perfectly happy with that.
 * The Alaska should probably not count as BCs. There's an argument advanced by certain historians that they should be classified as such, but it's not a clear dominant narrative, and it's clear the US Navy didn't want them classified as BCs. Also, that's much easier to argue at FTC. To go the other way, we'd need a historical work that focuses on the argument and concludes that they are BCs, and AFAIK there is none. (which reminds me that I should get around to expanding that historiography section in the Alaska class article sometime) Anyway, gotta run again. I'll keep check back here probably tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand about the motivation issues, that's why I like the topic boxes as they help keep me focused. If you want a laugh, check out my Sandbox for all of the topics that I'm either working on, planning to work on, or dreaming about. I'm glad to hear that the dreadnought race article is pretty well done; I'll move Agincourt up in my to-be-finished queue so that doesn't delay things. I understand your reasoning about the Alaska's, but my issue is with consistency. Most of the other cruiser-killer designs are counted as OMT ships and/or are included in existing GTs. Many of them also weren't called BCs by the owning navies, like the B-65s and the Stalingrad class. At any rate we can discuss this at length later when we all have some time; I just wanted to give you an idea of my thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez, talk about some long-term planning! I love it! The dreadnought race article could probably pass FAC as it is, but I'm hoping Lecen will have a few nuggets to add.
 * I suppose we could also make an argument that there is a section on the cruiser killers in the battlecruiser article. I think it'll be tough, and we'll definitely have to talk into it, but it might be doable. I guess my thinking is I don't really have a strong opinion either way. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Ark Royal (1914)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Harvester (H19)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stub
The remaining carierrs, the template looks like it needs more blue links. See this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the template and redirects are fine as is. The template lists all the ships that were begun, although the three that weren't finished are best covered in the class article, not as independent stubs. But thanks for pointing that out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Empress (1914)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK review note
DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Schorpioen
Hi, I've just uploaded two photos of Schorpioen to Commons:. Unfortunately the restoration of the ship was pretty half-hearted and little remains of her interior - most of which is occupied by a cafe and a dull museum gallery. I'm in the process of uploading lots of photos of the Dutch Naval Museum now. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC
Hi Sturmvogel, I'm afraid that I've just posted an 'oppose' review for this article as I think it needs quite a bit more work to reach FA class. The content is basically fine, but it's much less polished than your other FAs. I hope that the comments don't come across as being too harsh. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank is still copyediting it, so I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific issues on the FAC page so they can be addressed. Nevermind, I see that you already did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Rules about ships
Hello

On pl.wiki we want to put some rules what ships are ok to be in wiki (battleships etc.) and what are not ok (unnamed barge, very small yachts). Is there on en.wiki some rules about that? Or you know other wiki, where are such rules?

PMG (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. If I remember correctly, the rule of thumb is that any ship of over 100 ft in length, or any military- or government-owned or operated vessel regardless of length, is considered to be notable unless a lack of reliable sources indicates otherwise. Of course many civilian vessels of less than 100 ft length are notable per the general notabilty guideline, and these are, of course, included as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for help. As you can see there are diffrent ways. PMG (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on IWM ...
... their links to archival catalogue references have never been very stable, and they don't seem to have improved with the new site layout. The link to Napier's papers in the Courageous article goes straight to the main search page. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd just caught that and updated it to the current address. Maybe it will stabilize at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like they work now, which is very handy. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian cruiser Admiral Makarov (1906)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Breslau
Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard ACR
Hello. This article looks very good to me, I've left a few comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (23). Please have a look when you get a change. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'd already caught your comments on my watchlist. I've responded on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona, South America, and related dealios
Hey Sturm. I should be able to help a bit with Arizona on Wednesday and Thursday, after both my papers are due, but I have another due Monday, so the weekend is questionable. The FAC isn't a trainwreck yet, so I hope we can push it through. You've done an enormous amount of work on this, and I want to thank you again for that. Second, South American dreadnought race is FACable at anytime now. I'll probably put it through over winter break, which is also when I'll add info from my sources to Agincourt. She's probably GANable right now, as you have all of the general information already. Hope your Thanksgiving was filled with turkey and family (and you didn't come down with the flu, like me!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome and I think that we can push it through with comments from a few more reviewers as we've already had source and citation reviewers. I'll see if I can round up a few more. See if you can address Nick's comments and the couple that Dank left. Agincourt is already nom'ed as I really just needed to update it with info from Topliss, so you can submit the FTC anytime once it gets promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do asap. I think I have one more source at home that I'll double check. Would you like me to wait for the FTC until Agincourt is a FA? (Cla liked to do that, so I thought I'd give you the option) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not sure that I can get Agincourt to FA as her activities during the war aren't well documented. This is a problem common for most of the RN dreadnoughts which will complicate our efforts for the grand dreadnought FTC. I haven't checked to see, but I don't think that you need Agincourt to be at FA to qualify for your FTC, so there's really no point in waiting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 27 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) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

250th GA

 * Congrats, Sturm! This is really impressive! Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm rather pleased myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Helgoland (1912)
Orlady (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Blanche (H47)
Orlady (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian cruiser Bayan (1907)
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help to Make SMS Weißenburg Featured in Turkish Wikipedia
Hello Sturmvogel. I've translated SMS Weißenburg to Turkish (as Turgut Reis), it is about to be a featured article there. I am having a difficulty finding a good source about it's dismounted cannons. I found that one of the ship's 28cm twin turrets was dismounted from the ship and put into a fortification in Dardanelles in Güzelyalı, Çanakkale in probably June 24, 1936. Here is a picture of the turret in present day Çanakkale. It states that the guns were taken from the ship and mounted there in 1936, and the first commander of the battery was Önyüzbaşı (Lieutenant) Selami Arıkan. That battery was called as "Turgut Reis bataryası", "Üçüncü Batarya (3rd Battery)" and "Beşyüzaltmışbeşinci batarya (565th battery)".

Since you have a great knowledge about battleships, could you please help me to find a solid source stating this event? I could not find any Turkish or English sources online. Thanks in advance.

PS: Great article on SMS Goeben too, I've translated it to Turkish and it is a feature article nominee, it'll be featured in tr.wiki very soon. I'll soon start to work on SMS Breslau, it'll be a GA in tr.wiki.--Khutuck (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish I could help you more, but I had absolutely no idea that any of Torgut Reis' turrets were dismounted and used as coastal artillery. The best source in English for the Ottoman ships is The Ottoman Steam Navy as referenced in the Goeben and Breslau articles and it says nothing about the ship being disarmed in the mid-1930s. I'd consider that the photo would be a source for the statement, provided that the monument was erected by some official group.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkish community accepts the source, but sadly the officials that erected that monument are not known for their precise history knowledge. This site states that "Decommissioned in 1933 and turned into barrak vessel for dockyard workers." and the photo/monument says turrets were used as fixed artillery. I should leave it this way than, and hope to stumble upon some info on the matter. Thank you for the answer :) --Khutuck (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This book appears to address the issue - I don't know if you can access the book through your local library. Parsecboy (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've requested it myself through Inter-Library Loan, although I'm a little doubtful that we'll get much more than the snippet showed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll use this as a source for now, please notify me if you can get the book, I'll update the source. Thanks. --Khutuck (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

First Cruiser Squadron
Unfortunately my recent trip to London turned into a long drinking session, but as I wind my way home on the train, I've just found something in the copies of "Battle Cruiser Force War Records - Miscellaneous" from ADM 137/2134 at The National Archives. It's an order from the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet (Beatty) to the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Force (Pakenham), dated 4 August, 1917, outlining Napier's appointment as Vice-Admiral Light Cruiser Force. The key section is sec. 7, reproduced below. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"7. Vice-Admiral Napier will remain in immediate command of the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron for the present, until such time as a Commodore may be appointed in charge of that squadron which will consist of H.M.S. 'Chatham', H.M.S. 'Yarmouth', H.M.S. 'Birkenhead', and H.M.S. 'Chester'. H.M. Ships 'Courageous', 'Glorious' and 'Furious' will then be detached from the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron and become a separate unit which will be known as the 'First Cruiser Squadron' and Vice-Admiral Napier will remain in direct command of the First Cruiser Squadron in addition to retaining his appointment in administrative charge of the Light Cruiser Squadrons of the Grand Fleet."
 * Thanks, Simon, that's great stuff. I'll add it to the articles when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Engineering and Tech good articles
I was just following Category:Uncategorized good articles. Please correct the topic if you feel it should be something else. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand now. I think that the Gimmebot was slow in posting the article history as a "War" article and so it showed up on your radar as uncharacterized. It just did that a few minutes ago, so no problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TFAR
Not worth making a fuss at TFAR-- it's on Raul's talk page, and I'm just now starting through the rest of FAC, so I could be a while. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If he did it reverted me, I was going to let it lie as not worth the hassle. Thanks, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is unlikely to be opposed on any rational basis, so I don't see any need to flout procedure in listing a sixth nomination when five are the page's maximum. As a second point, you really should have waited until an uninvolved delegate or the director promoted the nomination. I specifically did the image review at the FAC in hopes that it would help get the article promoted in time so that it could be run on the Main Page. I applaud your enthusiasm, but we do have procedures around here, and it sets a bad precedent for the future to go outside of the processes established by the community for these things.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't contribute to this kerfuffle; with all the shots being fired at FAC, it's the friendly fire that exhausts most. I'm not clear if Imzadi is now saying he thinks I have a conflict on promoting since I entered a list of prose fixes needed, but surely putting it up at TFAR while I was still working might not have been the best idea. While I'm within my remit to leave comments before promoting, I wasn't certain I would finish promoting tonight, but got to yours first because of the pending (important) deadline-- then called it to Raul's attention so he would know it was reviewed and could have a look if I didn't finish tonight. In fact, I haven't finished tonight, have seven more articles to read. Raul knows about it, so there's no reason for concern. But let's stop shooting each other and giving the peanut gallery reason to believe that FAC and FA writers are all "prima donnas", ok? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I waited until you'd said all good before I moved it to the nomination page as I wanted to get it the maximum exposure for any necessary edits to the lede before it went up in a few days. If it had a longer lead time I wouldn't have bothered until all the formalities were completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to point any fingers here, Sturm, and certainly didn't mean to point any at you. My "all is good" edit summary most likely confused you and that is my fault; a FAC is not closed until it's closed, and I only meant that all of my prose niggles were resolved, but I was still working, and in the event I didn't finish getting through FAC, I was indicating that my niggles were resolved should Raul get to it before I finished.  But now I'm unclear whether Imzadi considers that I have a COI because I entered comments.  I don't care a wit about the long knives from the peanut gallery who have ill intentions towards FAC and FA writers, but as I said, it's the friendly fire that exhausts and we should all take care not to give the peanut gallery reason to shoot more blanks.  I'd like clarification from Imzadi and will look in again tomorrow morning when I finish reading the remaining FACs that are maturing.  Raul juggles many factors in deciding what TFAs to run, and if he intends to run a Pearl Harbor TFA this year, I'm sure all will end well, and there's no need to jump the gun.  Again, I'm sorry for my part in confusing you with the edit summary.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't aware how you actually worked closings. I'll keep it in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence, and leave it to Sandy's judgement if she's sufficiently involved in the review to close or not. This is one of those borderline cases that doesn't have a nice yes/no answer.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Imzadi ... not sure how we're supposed to resolve this bind, since so many FACs sit there waiting for review, then delegates have to look ourselves, if delegates don't look and weigh in it's claimed that we don't review content, if we do, we supposedly have a COI... lose-lose :) Well, I trust that Raul is aware so the situation will be handled.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I didn't expect a prose review, although you made some good suggestions; I only wanted it closed in time for the anniversary and thought that it met all the necessary criteria. I'm not really concerned if a delegate feels the urge to make suggestions or not since that depends on the quality of the reviews, which is, as we all know, highly variable. So I wouldn't think that you've placed yourself in a COI situation just because you made some comments and/or suggestions. As a delegate, you have to step up if the reviewers have missed some things in your estimation. That's just doing what's necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem here was that (as typical for MilHist) it hadn't gotten enough independent review, so I had to give it a thorough going over (had there been more independent review, I might not have had to enter so much commentary myself). I don't think I've put myself in a COI either, since none of my niggles were enough to prevent promotion, but with the long knives out to get FAC, I'm also not interested in testing anyone else's "pseudo" "hypotheses" about how I should do my "job".  I'll ping Ucucha to have a look, since Raul hasn't gotten to it yet. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it passed! Sturm, you're simply awesome, and Sandy, your help was much appreciated. Thank you all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we got it done, thankfully. I just need to learn to go through things like this with a much finer comb; there were whole sections that I didn't pay much attention to before I nom'ed it thinking that they'd been done already. They would have been caught in the GAN or the ACR if we'd had time, but still...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Further proof of the difficulty in pleasing any of the people any of the time, see WP:ERRORS for the complaints that have already started. Hence, my comment that we get shot at enough without adding in friendly fire. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And more complaints at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 7. Apparently, only mentioning Pearl Harbor in the TFA blurb and not also the On This Day box (which of course as we know is the most-read section of the main page and the thing that everyone reads first) "lends credence to the "Wikipedia is too liberal" argument" (user1) and "will surely seem like a slap in the face to many users, which seems to me like pretty poor policy/approach on Wikipedia's part" because "there is overall no indication that an extremely important event in world history happened today" (user2)  Someone else help me before I say something I don't regret. BencherliteTalk 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sturmvogel, well said. BencherliteTalk 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig
Hi, I have a question regarding the Joachim Helbig article and the claim that the British at some point referred to his unit as "The Helbig Flyers". Do you happen to have access to a non-German source for this claim? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never hear of that name before, but your best bet would be British pilot memoirs who flew against him for confirmation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

 * Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
You might be interested in Talk:The Longford Trust, a GA you recently passed. BencherliteTalk 23:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, have you checked the user for other copyvio issues?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a stream of DYK notifications on the user's talk page-- they should be checked at least (but I've got my hands full for the next few days-- of course, so do you, TFA :). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted one userspace draft of his already (four sentences, all more-or-less identical to the sourcse from which they came: not a good start to a draft). I'm having a look now to see what else I can find.  For "a stream of DYK notifications", read "four": The Longford Trust, Gerrymandering (film), Edward Fitzgerald (barrister) and West Wing Week. BencherliteTalk 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the hyperbole ... I only glanced up a short ways before clicking out in exasperation :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be worse... Anyway, when I said I was having a look now, what I actually meant was "it's midnight in my time zone, so I'm off to bed and will look at things another time if work permits and nobody gets there first." BencherliteTalk 23:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Imperator Pavel I
Hey Sturm, just giving you a poke on the GAN - I think you might have lost track of it. Have you had a chance to look at Halpern yet? Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did totally forget. All done now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba
Can you tell me why this article failed to be awarded a GA, please? There is no note on the discussion page regarding why you came to your decision and the whole page regarding the review is no longer on the discussion page. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't stable and fails criteria 5. You're edit warring with other editors. My original comments are at Talk:Battle of Magdhaba/GA1. You can otherwise access the page through your contributions link. In my opinion, you need to use the unit titles as they were used at that time, whatever they were, and resolve the rest of the differences with the other editors before bringing it back to GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I just went straight to the article talk page and couldn't find anything, except that it had failed.

Thanks very much for your time reviewing this article. Unfortunately it has turned out to be a bad time to do it, regarding the edit war. Perhaps in a week or two things may be different.

However, I'm keen to know if the prose quality is satisfactory now? And if I need to work on the coverage and its focus? Or was it simply because of the edit war? I'd be grateful to know your thoughts. --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the edit war is over. Can you please have another look at this article for a GA? --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you wait a week from the date that I failed it and resubmit it for a new GA then and let me know when you do that. The prose is better, but I think that you still have a problem with including too much background information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll get back to it in the New Year. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona

 * Thanks, Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

28 cm SK L/40 "Bruno"
I was just reading the article to see if I could do the review. The abbreviations "Sprenggranate L/2.9 m. Bdz." I believe that "m. Bdz." stands for "mit Bodenzünder" (with base fuse) and that "Kz." stands for "Kopfzünder" (head fuse). If true, could you add a footnote please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what they stand for, but I spelled that out fully in English. I just didn't spell out the German abbreviations because I don't think that it would add much for the English-speaking audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona photo
Hi,

I have recently noticed a discrepancy, which I hope you may be able to shine some light on, as a major contributor to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39). The photo in the info box is supposedly from 1930, but our article says that the ship was in Norfolk Navy yard from 1929 to 1931 for modernisation. The date of 1930 comes from the national archives, which is obviously reputable... but they could have made a mistake. I have started a conversation on the photos talk page on commons, if you want to add you thoughts.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battleship Barnstar!

 * Thank you kindly, sir!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Java War (1741–1743)
Hi Sturm, I was wondering how the review of Java War (1741–1743) is going. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been caught up finishing up finals. I should get to it later today or tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks. Congrats on Arizona, BTW. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions
If you have the time, I was hoping you could help me. I don't have much experience with GA. My Russian friend and I have collaborated on several extensive Russian articles here. Our best article is on the Nobel Prize winner Ivan Bunin. My main concern is that most of the refs for the Bunin article are Russian language refs. Does it have a shot at GA with these refs? My collaborator has several GA and FA articles on ru.wiki, so his sources are trusted there. One of the reasons I ask is that GA Russian literature related articles are almost non-existant here. The other reason is that my collaborator and I have other big articles ready like Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy and Mirra Lokhvitskaya, or almost ready, and the English language sources have proven to be scarce (and I've really searched for them).

I've also wondered for a while if the List of Russian explorers or the List of Russian artists would qualify for Featured List status?-- INeverCry 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only problem that I see with your articles is your use of citations in Russian. They should probably be transliterated in their entirety. At the very least, simple things like page, place of publication, etc., should be translated into English, but that's just me. I'd inquire on the talk page of the Literature project about their guidelines about citations in languages other than English as they'd know more than I would. I think that your articles easily qualify for GA status and I'd encourage you to write more. Your lists also look good enough for FLC, though there may be a problem that you haven't cited the table cells that provide the person's lifetimes. I'd look at on-going FLCs and see how they're being evaluated for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and encouragement. Your opinion on the quality of our articles is almost as good to me as a little green GA button.-- INeverCry 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very kind to say so, but you should be aware that I'm not well-read in Russian literature, especially anything after Turgenev and Leo Tolstoy. So I wouldn't place a lot of value on my opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Basilisk (H11)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Help desk
Your input would be appreciated at this Help desk thread if you haven't seen already. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hesperus edit conflict.
Hi Sturm. Nice work on the Hesperus article.

On the edit conflict situation, the template you put up clearly says: You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. That's exactly what I did, nothing more or less. Now, if you want other editors to stay away from an article for a while to avoid edit conflicts you should use Template:In use. That template says what you want, the one you've been using doesn't. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct, but I expect a certain amount of circumspection and examination of the article history when adding something to a page with that template. I generally use it if I'm going to be working on something for an extended period of time, rather than the more focused time that I spent on it today. I'll try to remember to use the "in use" template when working on one of the latter articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably best if you use the "in use" template when you're actively doing major edits on an article. The "under construction" template does, after all, encourage other users to pitch in and help, which is, as previously mentioned, what I did. Manxruler (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not mad, I just wish that you had looked to see when I'd made my last edit. But it's not a big deal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I'm not mad either. Next time I'll try to watch out for when you last edited an article, regardless of which template has been used. I really do enjoy and admire the work you're doing on the various warship articles, perhaps especially the destroyers. Manxruler (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad somebody's enjoying them. And I appreciate the help with the links. I had no idea that there was an article on the occupation on the Faeroes. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect we're quite a few who do. The naval ship crowd for certain. Also, the destroyer articles often make for very good DYKs, which I appreciate. The British response to Operation Weserübung and the Danish government's decision to capitulate is quite interesting, not only did they occupy the Faroes, they also captured Iceland. Lots of things going on in Scandinavia in April-June 1940. It's not without reason I'm quite focused on the events of 1940 when it comes to the Second World War. Manxruler (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I plan on working on more destroyer articles this month to take advantage of the GAN elimination drive since the usual month-long wait is tedious when I'm trying to finish off a GTC of some kind. It's a pity that the DYK rules aren't any more liberal as it would be nice to publicize the incident where the two German submarine crewmen were thrown into Hesperus's motorboat. I rewrote nearly the entire article, but only added about 2K more text so it doesn't qualify for a DYK. The current rules are nicely simple, which is important, but it does cut down on the interesting trivia that one can present to the large Wiki audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one unusual way to get captured, that's for sure. :) I see your point. I have encountered a number of sizable and unreferenced/poorly referenced articles which I've completely rewritten. At least there are plenty of stubs and redlinks to work on. Manxruler (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no lie!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Apkallu
Hi. I corrected the broken link for the dyk. Sorry about that. No idea how that happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regstuff (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Hurricane (H06)
Orlady (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 09:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt
G'day, sorry I'm still a bit confused by that last point about the range. Can you take a quick look at the review again and let me know whether I've missed something? Talk:German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt/GA1. Anyway, its late here so I'll have to call it a night. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Havelock (H88)
Orlady (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Highlander (H44)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Ivanhoe (D16)
Merry Xmas to all our contributors and readers Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011
Sturmvogel 66,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis that season again

 * Right back at you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks, hope you have a good Boxing Day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Imogen (D44)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Akagi
If you would like to go ahead and submit Akagi to FA, I probably won't be making any more major changes to it. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do it once I get back home after New Year's Day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

New HMS New Zealand photo
I've just found an excellent photo of HMS New Zealand on the State Library of South Australia's Flikr stream, and uploaded it at File:HMS New Zealand at Adelaide.jpg. I think that it's much better than the current infobox photo, but I'll let you be the judge of how to use it given that the article is currently at FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1st Provisional Marine Brigade FAC
Hello. Just wanted to let you know, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade, which you reviewed last time it was up for FAC, is up again (last time it ran out of time without getting enough supports) If you could take another look, I would appreciate it! The review is here. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm still waiting for a response from you here. — Ed! (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll finish it up this weekend. Sorry for the delays. BTW, I don't know if you caught them, but I made some comments on your Marine Brigade FAC just before it was promoted. It would probably be worthwhile to look them over as I think that they'd improve the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rio
Hey Sturm, I thought you might be interested in this. Also, given what I have at South American dreadnought race, we may be able to add enough so you can get Rio through FAC even with a paucity of information about her WWI activities. Last, there are a ton of NARA photos of Arizona on the Commons – I don't know why I didn't see them before. You may want to look through them, as some are quite good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba resubmitted for GA review
Hi, the edit war seems to have died down and so I'm just letting you know, as I promised I would, that this article has been resubmitted, with high hopes that third time is indeed lucky! --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello again. This is just a quick message to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case you are involved in is now under way. A set of ground rules has been laid out, awaiting approval of all parties involved. This is the last time I shall send a general talk page message regarding the case (unless I have specific reason to do so) - therefore, if you have not already, I recommend that you add the case page to your watchlist. If you have any problems with the mediation process, or if you are unable to participate, please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you for your co-operation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

 * Thanks, Buggie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Magic word
Holla, after having stumbled across Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō, I think you should add to the article so the title follows conventions of having ship names italicised. Just saying, so you know what to add to other ship articles. Take care --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:44, 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] 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

DYK for Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there, Sturmvogel. Just a quick note to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case your are involved in is currently waiting for your opening statement before it can proceed any further. If you could briefly outline your interpretation of the case, that would enable us to move forward in the process. If you have any concerns or issues, just let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg
Hello, could you please help us identify the time and location that this image was taken, I'm writing this here because you had nominated USS Arizona (BB-39) for FA, also as a member of many related WikiProjects, you probably have good information about this. this image is currently nominated for FP, please see its discussion here. Thanks for the help.  ■ MMXX  talk  00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  ■ MMXX  talk  01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats
Nice work on Akagi with Cla. That's a really good article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's nice to hear. You did pretty good on the dreadnought race article as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan]`

Katharine Hepburn
Is that true that you just read a biography of her? If that's the case, would you maybe be interested in reviewing the article? It is struggling to get any comments right now (see here). I'd be so happy for some comments, if you can spare the time! Which book did you read? It wasn't the new Scotty Bowers one was it? -- Lobo (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I planned to; I'll get to it sometime this weekend. I read Katharine Hepburn: The Untold Story by James Robert Parish. It was OK; it's most interesting conclusion was that Hepburn and Tracy probably never consummated their relationship physically. The author suggests that Kate was bisexual with confirmed love affairs with Howard Hughes and Leland Hayward and unconfirmed affairs with Laura Harding and several other women.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh god, I've stayed far away from that book. From what I've read it is based on no solid research at all, and is pure guesswork. Yeah Mann argues that the Tracy relationship wasn't sexual as well. I don't buy it - there are too many comments from people who knew them who talk about it as a "real" relationship. It was a very weird relationship and I don't understand it (apparently they would never sleep in the same room), but I've read enough stuff that convices me it wasn't just a long friendship. There's this one telegraph from Hepburn reproduced in the Curtis book, that I don't think Parish or Mann or anyone else would've had access to (sorry I have to quote it) - she says "for the first time in my life I am humbly&mdash;sweetly&mdash;desperately in love&mdash;was then, and frantically trying to understand this feeling and become a woman". Now how can anyone say that was just a friendship?! They just both needed a lot of space. And I personally think there would be more concrete evidence if she'd actually had a romantic relationship with Laura Harding, and any other women. Kate openly joked about her and Laura being seen as a couple, which I don't think she would have done if it had actually occurred.
 * ANYWAY I'm rambling. That would be so so great to have a review. I'm worried about it slipping away without any attention, that would suck. -- Lobo (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Barring a time machine, we'll never know the exact truth, so I'm agnostic on the subject if they did or didn't, but I do think that the subject needs to be addressed. Especially as it's a subject of fascination in the biographies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zuihō class aircraft carrier
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello Sturmvogel. I hope you can help Parsecboy and me. I am doing a GA Review of German cruiser Emden. Under the heading Service history, the second para begins:
 * After the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10) Her first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2)

Elsewhere, Wikipedia states that Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September. It is my view that readers of this article will quickly see the anomaly in the above sentences – namely that outbreak of the war, installation of a degaussing coil, arming with a load of mines, positioning to the North Sea and laying a minefield all occurred on the same day – 3 September.

I have raised this anomaly repeatedly with Parsecboy but he doesn’t acknowledge the need for Wikipedia to resolve or clarify the anomaly in some way. Parsecboy has confirmed that Williamson only says the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of war. Williamson doesn’t specify that the coil was installed on 3 September or any other nominated date.

The current state of the debate can be seen at diff.

Are you able to assist, either by suggesting a way this information can be presented that avoids the obvious anomaly; or by persuading Parsecboy that there is an anomaly worth resolving before the article is promoted to Good article? Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Dolphin ( t ) 00:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dolphin, Wikipedia is not the authority on when World War II began. Many historians use 1 September as the starting date. There's no inconsistency if one assumes the 1 September date. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about many historians. We are talking about the information from Williamson.  Does Williamson nominate the date on which he considers the war started?  Does Williamson nominate the date on which the degaussing coil was installed? Presumably not.  Readers will spot the obvious anomaly.  It is an anomaly which must be resolved if this article is to be promoted to GA. Regards.  Dolphin  ( t ) 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything specifically on Emden, but Gröner says a degaussing coil installed above the waterline after '40-41 in his book on large German warships. I don't know offhand how many mines Emden carried, but I know that for the British minelaying destroyers it was a multi-day operation just to load the mines aboard. So I suspect that they were loaded before the Brits declared war and then laid on 3 September; so there's no contradiction about that part, as far as I'm concerned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks for responding to my request. It is not necessary to have specific information on Emden.  Please put yourself in the position of a reader who also has nothing specific on Emden, but is an astute and critical reader; and ask yourself how that reader might react on reading the second paragraph.  In my case, the anomaly lit up the page as clearly as if it was a neon light.  I immediately checked the dates of the opening events of the war, just to check my memory wasn't failing me, and sure enough there it was - the opening events were on the 1st and 3rd of September 1939.  I think critical readers will also quickly identify the anomaly.  If this article is to be promoted to GA the anomaly must be eliminated somehow.  Do you have a suggestion? Alternatively, do you agree this is an anomaly worth resolving before determining whether the article passes or fails the GA Review?  Dolphin  ( t ) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolphin, I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. ' It does not matter a goddamn bit what you think is plausible or not . Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE? You don't think it's possible that the degaussing coil was installed between 1 September and 3 September? Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit. Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Wikipedia content policies can review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Classic H-Wood
Thanks Sturm, I am delighted with Kate's promotion. I've actually already re-written the Spencer Tracy article. It was pathetically short a few months ago, and I thought "I can't have Kate's article so strong, and leave his so weak." But I still have a bit more to add, and then give it some polish, and then I'll take him to GA (and who know, maybe FA at some point?! I fear I have the bug now). Make sure you read the James Curtis bio - it's huge, but a great read. And stay well away from the Bill Davidson one. I can't say I have plans for Jimmy Stewart or Bogie - their articles are a bit messy, but they are a lot better than most classic H-Wood bios. And as much as I love watching both of them, I don't think I'd be hugely interested in reading about them.

I've been wanting to ask you something about the KH biography you read actually, if you don't mind. Does he claim that she was in a relationship with Laura at the same time as with Leland Hayward? Because the whole time she was living with Laura, she was seeing Hayward (Laura left Hollywood in about 1935). But you said he thinks she had a relationship with both..? How does he get around this? I've been wondering about it.

It's nice to know you're a fan of classic films. A big diversion from navy history! Seen any good ones lately? -- Lobo (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've returned the book to the library, but I think that the the author said said that Hayward was one of the reasons that Laura left. Also I think that there was a little-known female assistant director that Hepburn was seeing around that time, although I may be misremembering the sequence about all of that. The author spun the various affairs like Hepburn wasn't above sleeping with people to help advance her career, although her anger when Hayward married Margaret Sullavan was supposed to have been titanic. I'm afraid that I'm not really a Chaplin fan, although some of that may be my own problems with silent films and the conventions of the era. I find his later comedies way over the top and couldn't finish The Great Dictator or even City Lights.


 * I've been working my way through the TV show Mad Men (highly recommended) lately, but I borrowed Giant from the library and was disappointed when it proved to be too scratched to use. (Note to self, find another copy) Other recent movies were Citizen Kane (overrated), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (amazing, one of the best of all time), Long Day's Journey into Night (amazing as well, but too depressing to watch again anytime soon), Holiday (so-so), Bringing Up Baby (OK, but not great), North by Northwest (overrated), Rear Window (awesome, one of my favorites), Judgement of Eve (excellent), Vertigo (overrated), To Catch a Thief (fun, but not great), Rebecca (quite good), Notorious (excellent), Maltese Falcon (very good, but perhaps a bit overrated), Lifeboat (interesting), The 39 Steps (lame and implausible), and the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much (good, but not great).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That director you're talking about would be Dorothy Arzner, who directed Kate's second film. Arzner was definitely a lesbian, but there's no evidence I know of that suggests she had an affair with KH (although I knew these trashy bios claimed it). "The author spun the various affairs like Hepburn wasn't above sleeping with people to help advance her career" > this is definitely true (corroborated by Katharine Houghton), but I'd honestly take most things Parish said with a huge teaspoon of salt.
 * Couldn't finish The Great Dictator?!? Gasp, I think that is one of the greatest films ever made! You've also dismissed two of my other absolute favourites, Bringing Up Baby and Citizen Kane, so perhaps we shouldn't discuss movies again. ;) But we are in full agreement about Mad Men. Excellent show, I can't wait for the new season. -- Lobo (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't Arzner. It was somebody (Jane???) who never got a chance to direct and the author implied that this person sacrificed a chance(s) at directing for Hepburn's sake as part of KH's support system in the mid- to late 30s. I can get the book out of the library again if you'd like more info. On the Chaplin film, he used far more farce than I'm comfortable with, I guess, and I couldn't suspend my disbelief any longer. Farce needs to be used with a light hand, IMO, and Chaplin went overboard. I'd have to watch Bringing Up Baby again to see what exactly I didn't like, but Citizen Kane seemed incomplete. It had a fair amount of extraneous stuff in it and was missing some important pieces on Kane's history that should have been included, from what I remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, John and I have seen almost all of those and your takes are identical to ours, except for Mad Men ... couldn't get into that, can you recommend any particular episode? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't say, but I got Season 1 from the library and just went through all of them in order. Superb TV; makes me wish that I had cable to watch the new season on. I did finally see Giant last night. Interesting, but too heavy-handed at the end. Dean and Taylor had the most interesting performances, although Dean's character needed some more background to be fully fleshed out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there, I'm sending this message to everyone involved in the Falklands War mediation case. After some discussion, it seems that the established consensus was to include Margaret Thatcher only in the infobox for the war, which has not changed since the initiation of the case. We now need to establish whether or not an RfC or discussion should be held regarding the role of military history infoboxes in general. Could you please indicate your position at the bottom of this section. I am hoping that we can get moving with this again to reach a conclusion that we are all happy with, and this will help us to do that. Thank you for your time. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Turahan Bey
Hello Sturmvogel! Are you still reviewing Turahan Bey? Constantine  ✍  12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that you'd made the necessary changes as I only watchlist the GA review page, not the page itself. Next time, let me know on that page and I'll see if anything else needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * THanks, I'll keep that in mind. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's promoted now. Thanks for the reminder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian monitor Ceará and other
Hello In Brazilian monitor Ceará and other from this topic you use: ''The oblong gun turret sat on a circular platform that had a central pivot. It was rotated by four men via a system of gears; 2.25 minutes were required for a full 360° rotation. ''

2.25 = 2 minutes 25 seconds or 2 minutes and 0.25 of minute so 15 seconds?

PMG (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello? PMG (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two and one quarter minutes or 135 seconds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ibuki class cruiser
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Great work with this article! Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, ItsZippy, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Template:Did you know nominations/Take This Lollipop
Though I hated to clutter the article with additional citations, your concern was easily addressed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

G3 battlecruiser
Hello

I am making translation of G3 battlecruiser to pl.wiki. We found one problem: They were designed to produce a total of 160,000 shaft horsepower (120,000 kW) at a working pressure of 200 psi (1,379 kPa) and temperature of 200 °F (93 °C). - steam in 93°C - its just water. Bigger pressure -> higher temperature of moment when water turn to steam. So if it`s not a boiling water for tea at top of Mount Everest there is error. Can you check this? PMG (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is correct as given in the source. It may be a typo, but I cannot confirm that from any other source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Volage (1869)
The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

17 cm mittlerer Minenwerfer specs
Hi there, the article gives "Maximum range 1,600 m (1,116 yards)" - both can't be correct. Do you have info on what it should be ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Incorrect manual conversion, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Harvrefs
Hi Sturmvogel, thanks for your message on my talk page.

I am not sure what you are on about exactly. I added harvrefs to the page that I am currently undertaking under GA review. You didn't mention any page or template in particular to which I have added them.

I do appreciate that WP:MILHIST etc. has its own style and a very good one to which many other branches of Wikipedia look up to as an example of how things should be done. All credit to you for that. But by the same token, if you don't tell me what article or whatever then there is hardly anything I can do or say about it. My take with GA is that I tend to make what I consider minor edits first so that the main author does not get annoyed at constantly being asked about small edits, then I summarise and then it is discussed.

Why should I not "change the ref style of any article without discussing it with the editors involved"? Edit, revert discuss. THis is one of the three pillars. So I have edited, you have reversed, and now we are discussing. Which is as it should be. You sound a little agressive but I don't think you mean to be. I'd like much to discuss this with you why I made the changes I did and come to a consensus.

BTW I also changed but ONLY to add the harvref in there, I have not taken anything out of it, just added the ref= tag for future use. I have not used it so far but it was there ready to if needed or wanted, and I saw no harm by doing so.

My sincere best wishes. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have reminded you that you'd done this during your GA review of the Briton class and, but you've probably already figured that out already. As for changing the cite style, see WP:SFN. I look forward to working with you on the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had guessed but it is best to be clear for the sake of the history etc of the discussion. I look forward to working with you too. It is very well written and very well sourced and stuff: pretty much a clear GA pass in my opinion. The only kinda niggly points I have are with the references all being to the same source (in particular to whitfield and lyon they are to the same PAGE of that source, which surely cannot be right?) and who your audience is. If for a general audience some of the military terms need putting in plainer language, but if for a military audience or fan the tone is exactly right for that. (I worked for, not in, the army for many a year so I can understand Army language, especially the words beginning with Foxtrot.) I think it is a great article and, like you, just want to polish it a bit and it should sail through GA I think. If my polishing with the harvnb is not to your liking, I can understand that, but MILHIST does kinda have its own way of doing things sometimes: I just did about forty French references for an article I translated, and had to translate the references and translate French templates to English, so perhaps I am just tired of references. They are the hardest thing to do.


 * Thank you for your good faith, yeah, this should be a GA with a little few minor edits. It is a very well written article and I don't mind at all that you dispute my comments, that is what it is about.


 * Had edit conflict with you as I was posting earlier so please excuse the lateness of my reply.


 * Sincere best wishes Si Trew (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just let me know whenever you think I could have written it in clearer language or if I'm using too much nautical jargon. I tried to link to most of those, but it's always hard to know how much of that sort of stuff you can assume that people know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have done a great job with linking the nautical jargon, I think you have got it exactly right with the mix there. Obviously it is a fairly technical article so people should be expected to know their port from starboard and so forth, and I think your links are exactly well placed neither to overlink nor underlink. I don't want to go man overboard on it, it is a pretty straight pass on it as far as I am concerned, a well written and coherent article that says what it aims to say and says it clearly. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

QF 14 pounder gun
Hi there, I originally created the article to document the gun as deployed by the Royal Navy i.e. the guns it inherited from the Chilean order. So I think the RN stuff should stay. If the guns as deployed elsewhere such as Victoria were an unrelated gun then perhaps the Victoria stuff should be removed. What is your source that they were not related ? Stuff I've found indicates they were all versions of the same Maxim-Nordefelt/Vickers-Maxim gun... the RN guns were separate QF, the ones on Cerberus were fixed QF but that was not a major difference. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rod, the guns on the Chilean ships were 50-calibre weapons weighing 17 or 18 cwt, a lot more than your Maxim-Nordenfeldt gun which also had a shorter barrel. The existing article should probably be renamed to QF 14 pounder Maxim-Nordenfeldt or somesuch and cleaned up to removed any remaining confusion with the Chilean guns, like the 12.5-lb ammo stats; with a new article entitled QF 14 pounder Mk I-II to cover the latter guns. I'm using Friedman's new Naval Weapons of World War I as my source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like I've made a real mess of this... best then to remove all references to the Chilean/RN gun, 12 pounder ammo etc, just leave it as named with Victorian navy stuff. Current article name is correct for the Victorian navy guns. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

USS Shangri-La (CV-38)
Hello

Can you check this article? Inside USS_Shangri-La_(CV-38) there is **The date of 30 June 1969 is incorrect. She deployed to the Mediterranean in early January of 1969 and came back to Mayport, Florida at the end of July 1969. On the way back to the US in July, she was changed from CVA to CVS.** visible in text. My English is not so good to fix articles. PMG (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed as unsourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Steamtown, USA/archive2
hi, Thanks for your photo review. I have responded on the template.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Steamtown image update
I was just about to call it a night when I got an email from a photographer with 5 new images for Steamtown, USA. Enjoy--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * actually these are the ones that used to be there. They are properly licensed now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Amethyst (1873)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Druid (1869)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Best practice
I am trying to collect what I would call best practices related to German military articles here. Maybe you are interested in the topic and would like to participate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Briton class corvette
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Errors in articles
Hello

USS Chattanooga (1864) - can you look at this article? Something at beggining is not correct. PMG (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Methinks that someone was having some fun at Wiki's expense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * USS Dukes County (LST-735) - strange error. Can you look at this article? Infobox is broken, but I can`t see where is error. PMG (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of citation format in USS Maine (ACR-1)
Thanks for your suggestion on adding "p." to page numbers of citations in this article. However, this use is inconsistent in the article and needs standardization. Also, the Chicago Manual of Style, to the best of my knowledge, does not encourage the "p.". It also has not been used on any of the articles on which I have worked, several of which I have taken through FAC and are now FAs. Since most of my Wiki work has been in classical music and not military history or warships, maybe the format has been different. But please be assured that I am not a newbie and would prefer not to be addressed as such. Let's both assume good faith and mutual etiquette. Jonyungk (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Chicago recommends that you put a shortened version of the title in there too. Typically it's frowned upon to change the previous referencing style of an article; for example, if I'm working on an article Sturm has written, I don't change his referencing style, I conform to it. Also Spanamwar is probably not a reliable source, and the bibliography could be alphabetized... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made no assumptions about your editing experience when I made my comment, nor was my tone condemnatory, so I'm a bit puzzled why you're feeling defensive here. All I asked was that you conform to WP:CITEVAR without explicitly mentioning it. You are indeed free to use whatever citation format that you prefer, but I'd bet serious money that your citation formatting had to be consistent at FAC, so please conform to the existing format as this article may well be submitted there at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair all around, shall we? Since my posting above, I standardized all citations to include "p." which I'm assuming was the format being used previously and, when I checked several similar articles, was also the format for them. This was two hours before Ed's posting here. Had he checked the article or edit log before posting, he might not have come seemingly out of the blue as a third party (although I know there's technically no such thing as a private talk page on Wiki where two parties can work things out). Thanks, Ed, for the reminder about shortened titles in citations, which I do if there is more than one source by the same author. I've been asked previously in PR and FAC not to do so if there is only one source for an author. The bibliography was already a mess before I arrived on the scene; I have been attempting to add sources in alphabetical order since then. BTW, if you have a specific request for me, I generally prefer it to appear on my talk page, not in the edit log of an article where I may feel all my business is being exposed. THAT was why I got a little miffed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the cites. My personal preference is for as little typing as possible, so I don't bother with a short title under any circumstances and only put in a year if there's more than one source from the same author. I know the article's a mess, which is why I've delayed putting it up for GAN as I don't have the time to spend to bring it up to speed for even that level. Feel free to fix the bibiliography if you want, but you certainly don't need to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it does appear to be getting better and I've found more info about the Maine itself than expected in older texts over the last couple of days, thanks to Google books. It's also a good break from all the Tchaikovsky articles on which I've been working recently. If it's not good enough for GAR after some more work, maybe PR would be a logical step to see where to go from there. The overall structure is good but some info on Maine's short career between commissioning and Havana might help. Jonyungk (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work. DANFS might be the best bet for her activities before the explosion, but, IIRC, she really didn't do much other than cruise off the East Coast during that time. I also wanted to read Rickover's book and to see what the latest theories/evidence were about her loss before sending it to GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome&mdash;it's been a definite pleasure. Wegner, who is mentioned in the article, worked on the Rickover study; he gives a good overview of it in the book I mentioned there and adds mention of a 1997 heat transfer study that would seem to back the Rickover hypothesis. BTW, I just created an article on Theodore D. Wilson, who designed the Maine at C & R. Jonyungk (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nürnberg GAN
Hey Sturm, I lost track of the Nürnberg GAN during finals week last quarter, and didn't get to it until now. Everything should be addressed now. Thanks for waiting on me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited HMS Dido (1869), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dido (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) 10:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beacon class gunvessel
Hello! Your submission of Beacon class gunvessel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Beacon class gunvessel
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. Someday I hope to finish the other Brazilian ironclads that participated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find anybook with details about those ships here in Brazil, but I'll keep looking. Once I find any, I'll help you out with those articles! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you could do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Frolic class gunvessel
Orlady (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Greek boats
Hi Surmvogel 66, as indicated, I've restarted the nomination, leaving the only comment that was directly related to content rather than process. Feel free to ping anyone who may already have contributed to ask them to revisit. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Content Review Medal

 * Thanks, Dan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee class cruiser
Thanks for your encouragement on my work on USS Maine (ACR-1) I've written a subsequent article on the Tennessee class cruisers and, if you have the time to look it over, would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you've made a very good start. I've improved the infobox and made some small changes in the lede. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot of time at the moment and won't for the next several weeks so I can't give you a thorough critique. However, some preliminary comments as they occur to me: I'm pretty fussy about the infobox and the information contained there in. I like to see links to most of the terminology used like boiler, deep load, conning tower, ihp, etc. as I believe that people may just glance at the infobox without looking at the rest of the article and it's a good idea to have terms linked in both places. It's often easier to copy and paste an infobox that's up to standard and make the necessary changes than to add all the fussy stuff to an existing one. Note the changes that I made to the conversion templates in the infobox for the armor; it would be a good idea to review the template's documentation so you can see exactly what you can do with it. I've added a few awkward tags to the lede where I think that the phrasing could be improved. I often have to take some time off from an article before these sorts of infelicities make themselves apparent to me, so it might be helpful for you to do the same. I like to have a table covering the basic construction information for each ship in the class as I did in Zuihō class aircraft carrier. Saves me from having to repeat the same basic sort of info for each ship's service history. You really out to find a copy of Ivan Musicant's U.S. Armored Cruisers: A Design and Operational History as that would probably allow you to replace those unreliable Globalsecurity.org references. Each book also needs the place of publication added. I would suggest that you submit the article for a peer review to bring more eyes with which to look it over. More eyes is almost always better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a first look, especially as I have no experience in dealing with infoboxes (not generally used in classical music articles). However, if you could give me some details on why GlobalSecurity.org is suspect, I'd be much obliged. I'd pulled from there for specs (engineering, etc.) that, at least for armor, were backed up by Friedman. I actually pulled the ships' service histories from he corresponding Wiki articles, only to find this morning that someone evidently pulled that info from GlobalSecurity.org. The language and specs on GlobalSecurity.org seem to echo the various USN and USN-related engineering journals I've been reading on Google Books. Jonyungk (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really not a 'high quality' source. We've found specs that were just as suspect as some of the others that he has right. He pulls stuff off the internet from just about anywhere; I've seen at least one page taken from a blog before, and it's impossible to tell who the real authors of the pages are. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason I've forgotten to mention the best readily available source for operational histories of US warships, the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships. I'd still get a hold of Musicant, but replacing your Globalsecurity.org refs with ones from DANFS will go a long way towards making the article ready for a GAN. Don't sweat the infobox, although I'd suggest copying the one that I used recently on Swiftsure class battleship for future reference as that's about the same vintage and everything should be linked appropriately. One more thing is that you should spell out numbers smaller than 10 unless they're part of a formal name or designation. This makes stuff like "Mk 6 eight-inch guns" easier to read as the two numbers can otherwise easily be mixed up. In fact, it's almost always a good idea never to put two numerical numbers adjacent to each other if you can avoid doing so. I realize that this is pretty minor, but these are the things that The Ed17 and I have to deal with at Featured Article Candidacy and it's just best to do it right the first time to save yourself the work fixing things later as most everything that we work on is destined for GA or higher quality assessments. We'd be happy to help you take this article all the way up to FAC if you've a mind to invest the time to do so. It's a lot of work, but it's a pretty good feeling when your article is promoted and later makes the main page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Same, if I can help in any way just let me know. :-) Also note that DANFS is online on the NH&HC site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I may take you both up on your offer, once I've put some more work into the article and gotten Musicant (which seems unavoidable&mdash;the only libraries anywhere chose to me that have it are ones to which I don't have access). I've replaced the GlobalSecurity refs for the service histories with DANFS but wish there were another site for engineering specs (cylinder sizes for the engines, etc). DANFS doesn't seem to get that specific. On using words in place of numbers, do WP conversion expressions use words or only numbers? That's been the one thing holding me back from doing what you suggest in this regard. Jonyungk (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The conversion template uses numbers only, so you may have to spell out things like "fourteen 6-inch (152 mm) guns". Musicant is probably your best bet for that sort of info, although I generally think that that's too much detail for a Wiki article and never bother with stroke length, cylinder sizes and the like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}{ I don't know how far back the online archives of Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers or Proceedings (US Naval Institute) go on Google Books, but you may be able to find an article in one of them devoted to the class. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: the Navy design specs list 10-inch and 6-inch guns together as the main battery and the 3-inch etc. as teh secondary battery. In the article, I listed 10-inch as main and 6-inch as secondary, then 3-inch etc as anti-torpedo boat. Which way should these be listed? Jonyungk (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it the way that you did it; there's no way that I'd consider the 6-inch guns as part of the main battery.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Music of the Sun /archive1
Hey. Would you be able to leave a comment at this GT candidate? It seems to have stalled and I'm unable to close it as is, so a comment either in support or opposition would definitely help. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a gander later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Mifflin
I updated Siege of Fort Mifflin with information from your new HMS Vigilant (1777) article. Thanks for the heads-up. Djmaschek (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/SMS Ostfriesland/archive1
Hey Storm, did Parsec respond to your satisfaction? - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I'd forgotten all about this review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

King George V class battleship
Hi just wanted to ask you how you approach the operational history sections in the class article eg. King George V class battleship (1939). Thurgate (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would look at some of the FAs/GAs authored by Sturm, Parsec, Cam, and me to get a feel for how you'd like to do it, as I think the four of us have slightly different philosophies on how to put them together (so perhaps Invincible class battlecruiser, Bismarck class battleship, Kongo class battlecruiser and Minas Geraes class battleship could be models, though I'm sure Sturm and Parsec could point out better examples of their work). My base advice, though, is to summarize the ships' careers into a suitable-length portion for your article. If the rest of your content is short, a longer summary is okay. In an already-lengthy article, you should summarize as much as possible and leave detail to the individual ship pages. You're the author though, so take the article in a direction you feel is most suitable. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks very much :) Also in the KGV class article some other editors have put in a lot of detail into the armaments and amour sections which I believe is redundant...so would it be better to start over again or simply re hash their info too make said sections smaller? Thurgate (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have the sources and would like to rewrite the sections, go ahead, but it may be easier to try to cut out parts from the existing text and double-check the rest against your sources. I wouldn't cut much of the armor section, though – it may be very detailed, but the overall scheme (particularly its underwater protection) is a focus of modern historiography. You should be able to cut out most of the extended tangent on the gunnery action between POW and Bismarck, as that information is probably best located in the POW article (just use see also). The block quote really needs to go, as the bracketed notes just make the thing really confusing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that. Thurgate (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi me again...was just wondering if you think it is worth it to pick up a copy of Burt, R. A. (1993). British Battleships, 1919-1939? As it is being reprinted and I was wondering if it would be worth the 30 pounds or so it costs. Thurgate (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should think so. The brand-new reprint has more pictures, which throws the pagination off between the two editions, but no new or revised text. It and Raven and Roberts are the two essential books for the British WW2 battleships, although Burt doesn't cover the genesis of the QE and Revenge class BBs in this book, but rather his WWI volume.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Normandie class
Hi Sturm - Were you still planning to review at Talk:Normandie class battleship/GA1? Just checking, since it's been "on review" for a while :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll get to it this weekend. Things have been a little crazy these last two weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky'
Hi. The article 'Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://sovnavy-ww2.by.ru/cruisers/typ_kirov.htm
 * You added this in August 2009.

This link is marked with Dead link in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * This copy from the archives might be good.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Agincourt
Hey Sturm. I added a bunch on Agincourt's background. Do you think it's enough to attempt a FAC? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see what the reaction is at ACR. But you've got one cite error that needs to be fixed before we send it there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed that in a subsequent edit . Would you like to nominate it? Otherwise I should be able to at some point tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Convoy Faith
Thanks for recommending that I consult the RCN official history for material on this battle - it had about two pages on it, with lots of new details. It seems to be a very impressive book as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite handy indeed. The second volume has less tactical detail, but lots of strategic/operational stuff that would be handy for an RCN in WW2 article, if one was inclined to be ambitious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga
This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 4, 2012. 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:



Kaga was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Originally intended to be one of two Tosa-class battleships, Kaga was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty into an aircraft carrier as the replacement for the battlecruiser JAPANESE BATTLECRUISER Amagi, which had been damaged during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. Kaga's aircraft first supported Japanese troops in China during the Shanghai Incident of 1932 and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. With other carriers, she took part in the Pearl Harbor raid in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month her aircraft participated in a combined carrier airstrike on Darwin, Australia, helping secure the conquest of the Dutch East Indies by Japanese forces. During the Battle of Midway in June, Kaga and the other carriers were attacked by American aircraft from Midway Atoll and the carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Hornet (CV-8), and USS Yorktown (CV-5). Dive bombers from Enterprise severely damaged Kaga; when it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. In 1999, debris from Kaga was located on the ocean floor; the main body of the carrier has not yet been found. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

See you soon!
Hi! Thanks for signing up to attend the Smithsonian Institution Archives edit-a-thon, today. We are located in Suite 3000, the 3rd floor, of Capital Gallery in Washington, D.C. Please bring a government issued ID, a laptop, and, if you wish, a camera. We will be taking a tour of the facility so you'll have a chance to see rare and cool things from the Archives! Any questions let us know, and we'll see you soon! Sarah (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A humble request

 * Hi. I'm looking at Courageous class aircraft carrier and saw the phrase "transverse arresting gear". About eighty gabillion articles use this phrase, so it seems very noteworthy, but CTRL-F didn't find the word "transverse" in the arresting gear article. Could you please, perhaps after this FAC is done or perhaps now as an adjunct to it, add some nice text to the arresting gear article about the transverse type? many tks! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files missing a rationale
Hi. According to Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale you have a number of files missing a rationale template. Perhaps you could have a look? It should be easy to find the files if you sort by uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

HMS Formidable (67)
Thanks for trying to answer my question. Here the reason for me asking. Arved Crüger was named in the Wehrmachtbericht on 30 March 1941 for an attack carried out on 29 March 1941 against a British task force. I assume that this may have been in support of the Italians in the Battle of Cape Matapan, but this is speculation by me. Author Jochen Kaiser (Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kampfflieger) links this to an attack carried out against a British task force including HMS Formidable southwest of Crete. It would be good to know if III./KG 30 participated in the actions in the afternoon of 29 March. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're searching your archives may I ask you to help me with another question pertaining to HMS Sussex (96)? Martin Möbus Stg 1 (according to German sources) was credited with damage inflicted on Sussex. According to the article here the damage was caused by an aerial attack dated on 18 September 1940. According to Möbus biography this attack occured on 3 May 1940 and he received the Knight's Cross for this attack. Do you happen to know more? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You asked me to remind you. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MiG-3winter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MiG-3winter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unneeded source'
Im at a loss. [] What exactly is the problem with adding conway's as a source for a ship's info box? And why revert from a plainlist to a series of line breaks? I think it might help if you told me why you keep reverting my edits so I can continue my editing without having to wonder if im breaking some rule. Bonewah (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC) There could be an easy way around this – why don't you just note in the "| Ship notes =" field where the information is coming from? I mean, there's no sense in adding blue numbers everywhere, but plain text similar to the first table here could satisfy Bonewah and provide more easily accessible information to readers. Just me thinking out loud. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just posting an explanation on your talkpage. Basically a general infobox source is not needed if the stats are sourced in the main body. And since that volume of Conway's wasn't being used by any other source than your own, I deleted it. I have no objection to your use of a plainlist rather than the line breaks that I normally use, although I wonder why you're spending the time converting them when it's invisible to the general reader. It was just easier to revert all of your changes than to delete the cite and ref alone, sorry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says a source isnt needed for a general info box? Is there some rule that says you cant cite a source if you only use it for an info box? And more to the point, why should it be undesirable?  To the best of my knowledge, *all* important information should be sourced, including a ships characteristics.  Again, if there is some manual of style guideline that im violating, or some consensus that i dont know about, then point me to it and ill be happy to abide. Bonewah (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall if it's a style thing or not; check the MOS for WP:Ships and WP:Infoboxes. I will say that I often use more than one source for the stats in the infobox so generically crediting them to Conways or any other single source is incorrect. Citing the infobox is redundant if everything in it is cited in the main body. If some item of information in the infobox is not cited there then cite the specific item, not the entire infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you use more than one source for stats in an infobox, then i think you should have to cite them, rather than insisting that i not cite what's in Conway's. When i find citation in infoboxes to specific sources, i leave them, when i find infoboxes whos information matches Conway's I cite Conway's, which is exactly what verifiability calls on us to do.  There is no rule forbidding editors from citing more than one source, in fact, it is encouraged. I could cite every fact in an infobox with a citation back to Conway's but Citing_sources and Inline_citation both seem to suggest not to do that, and, in any event, i dont think i should have to change based solely on the fact that you dont like it. I want to work with you to find some reasonable solution, as clearly you care a lot more about this frankly trivial point than i do, but youve offered me no rule or guideline, no consensus view, nothing more than your declaration that what im doing is 'incorrect'. If what im doing is incorrect, than show me where the correct and incorrect ways are detailed so we can both stop wasting our time on this minutiae. Bonewah (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As an infobox is supposed to summarise what is in the article, as a rule putting citations in the infobox should be avoided. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, there's been several discussions on WP:Ships about using the ship notes field for general citations for the infobox and it's been rejected repeatedly. I'll respond at greater length in a few days once I get home, but please note that the vast majority of ship FA-class articles do not cite anything in the infobox, only in the main body. The exceptions are those articles that do not explain the stats in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Were it just a matter of how or where the citation is placed, id be happy to put it in the ships notes, or end notes, or any other reasonable place, if for no other reason than the fact that the only thing lamer than throwing a fit about formatting is fighting someone who is determined to throw a fit about formatting. However, your deletions of my sourcing altogether for example here, declaring Conway's to be an 'unneeded source' and arbitrarily stating on my talk page that 'a general cite for the infobox is unnecessary provided that everything is cited in the main body' and above that 'since that volume of Conway's wasn't being used by any other source than your own, I deleted it', runs counter to my understanding of verifiability.  As i stated above, verifiability calls on us to provide citations for all factual material and i know of no rule that says you cant or shouldnt have more than one citation, or that citations are 'unnecessary' or unwanted if it just applies to the stats in an infobox.  If you want to dictate how that citation looks, ill acquiesce just to be spared this trivial nonsense, but you cant tell me i cant cite sources in wikipedia, or if you are going to continue, then you please base it on something more authoritative than your arbitrary declaration that doing so is 'incorrect'.  Im perfectly willing to work with you for some kind of compromise, but you dont get to dictate when the core principles of Wikipedia do and dont apply. Bonewah (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's WP:CONSENSUS that since the infobox summarises cited information in the aritcle, cites in the infobox itself are unnecessary duplication unless, for some reason, the infobox contains data not included in the article text. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, between the two of us, Sturm and I have not an insignificant number of Featured Articles&mdash;which is to say that we are intimately familiar with citation and other requirements at the highest assessment levels on Wikipedia. I can assure you that standard practice is that information in the infobox that is already cited in the text does not need to be sourced.
 * Ill tell you what: here is a typical edit in this regard. Just tell me what you would like it to look like so i can be done with this nonsense.  Better yet, edit it to look like what you think it should look like so i can copy your changes.  Bonewah (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the relevant discussions on the closely-related issue of general infobox citations in the Ship notes field was on WT:Ships sometime last fall, but I'll let you dig them out for yourself. The consensus from those discussions has been embodied in User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox Ship For Dummies, although it has not formally been adopted yet, where you will find:

Ship notes

Any other important information not covered by the other infobox fields This field should not be used for citations/references: either the citations should be attached to the specific entry, or the infobox should be treated as part of the lead section, with the citations attached to the information in the body of the article.
 * This statement doesn't exactly cover what you are doing, but it does imply that general cites, wherever they are placed, are not to be used. Furthermore, they are redundant once the information is cited in the main body.
 * So, the main problem that I see with your changes to the Centurion article is that you're using a general cite instead of individual cites for each line of the infobox. I'll agree that that doing as much looks ugly as hell with little blue numbers spattered all over the infobox, but that is an exceptional case because the article entirely lacks a decent description of the ship. Once such is added to the article, then the infobox cites would be redundant and should be removed. Break symbols should also be used instead of your plain list, but since they look identical to the average reader, I don't care about that. Another issue is the use of harv-formatted references when all of the other references don't use that format. This change goes against WP:CITEVAR and you should follow the existing reference format, what ever it is, so the refs are all consistent. And don't convert the whole article to use harv, either. While it has real advantages, I personally am rooted in my antediluvian preference for the simple cite format and will go to the mattresses over the issue. Just ask any of 's incarnations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter side note/tangent- I believe he's on User:Br'er Rabbit now. I think his original account was User:Davenbelle, but who knows. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious how he keeps on popping up with new usernames, but I haven't cared enough to track through his histories to see what the story is with him.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, the old template in someone's userspace, how did i miss that one? Ok sure, whatever. As i said before, its obvious that you care way more about this than i do, so, if i generally follow that template, you will stop needlessly reverting reverting my changes? Seriously, i wouldnt think the act of adding a source to an article would generate this much drama. Bonewah (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have no complaints provided you follow the MOS guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Battlecruiser
Hey Sturm, I've started some work on the article in the hopes of getting it to GA for the FT - I'm wondering if you wanted to work on it with me. The first half of the article appears to be in decent shape, but the rest is pretty rough (see my comment on the talk page about cutting it down significantly).

Oh, and archive your talk page, it's ridiculously long. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do to help. One of the top priorities should be to get rid of the Deutschlands and the whole commerce raiding mission; they were intended to defend against commerce raiders! It would also be helpful to take one or all three of the Alaska class articles to FA to facilitate the FT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you!, what a nice surprise--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For you
Thanks, Dan--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In recognition of your excellent work
Thanks very kindly, Nick--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Charlemagne
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charlemagne class battleship
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Courageous class battlecruiser
This is a note to let the main editors of Courageous class battlecruiser know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 17, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 17, 2012. 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:



The Courageous class comprised three battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during World War I. Nominally designed to support Admiral of the Fleet Lord John Fisher's Baltic Project, which was intended to land troops on the German Baltic Coast, ships of this class were fast but very lightly armoured with only a few heavy guns. To maximize their speed, the Courageous-class battlecruisers were the first capital ships of the Royal Navy to use geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers. The first two ships, HMS Courageous (50) and HMS Glorious (77), were commissioned in 1917 and spent the war patrolling the North Sea. Their half-sister HMS Furious (47) was designed with a pair of 18 in guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a ship of the Royal Navy, but was modified during construction to take a flying-off deck and hangar in lieu of her forward gun turret and barbette. All three ships were laid up after the end of the war and were rebuilt as aircraft carriers during the 1920s. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the main page appearance. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thanks you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agincourt
The FAC is up! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw, good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agincourt 2
Well, that was the fastest FAC I've ever had. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Featured topic candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, me too! I'm a little discombobulated as I don't have a co-nom ready to go right now and probably won't for a while. I figured that this would be the usual month + and planned accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was surprisingly fast. Congrats guys, and don't forget about Hermes, Sturm - Ian reviewed the article the other day and some of my comments haven't been addressed yet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Diderot
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian battleship Peresvet
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of the United States
Hello

As you can see this article have some white space in middle of it. Can you try to fix it? PMG (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an artifact on how wide you set your screen width. It displays without the whitespace on the laptop I'm using right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the image, seeing as it's causing problems. Some people have wide screen, y'know. :-) There's a precedent for doing this for a long entrance template at List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was never that fond of the image there to begin with as I added it at the insistence of one reviewer at the FLC. This way it matchs all of our other ship lists that don't have an image at the top.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Provence
Hey Sturm - I don't know what your situation is in real life at the moment, but if you're back to normal yet, I've started working on French battleship Provence, if you want to join in. If things are still screwed up, no worries, the article won't go anywhere. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just moved into student housing about an hour ago, (at my age!), and classes start next week, so I'm semi-OK. I have to print out (again, goddamn it) and translate my material for all the ships of that class. Go ahead and add what you've got for both Provence and Lorraine and I'll come in behind you, throw out all of your hard work (just kidding!), then you take a gander at what I've added and make any needful changes and then we'll submit for GA. I'd recommend copying over the description of Bretagne to the other two articles as I think the info's good for both of them and it's up to both our standards regarding links, etc.
 * Somehow, in all the recent excitement, I failed to grab the issue of Warship International (4/77) that I used in the Lexington article and will need for the Saratoga article. Can you scan that for me whenever you get a chance? There's no hurry as I want to finish off my Russo-Japanese War BB project first (only 9 more to go!).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Sturm - I finally got around to finishing off Provence, and am currently working on Lorraine. I'll request the WI issue now that I'm back at school. Hopefully they won't take forever to ship it from the book depository like the last time. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, my friend. Don't sweat the WI issue, I've got a few other articles to polish off first. Now if I could just buy a GA review!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you're talking about. I got spoiled over the summer with the GAN backlog drive, and now I have to readjust to having to wait a month or two for an article to get reviewed. Lorraine is about done, though I still need to get most of the modernization info added. I should get to that this afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sturm, I finally saw that you had done the Liberte review, and fixed the problems you noted. Also, I've done about as much as I can with French aircraft carrier Béarn by trawling through GB - the lead still needs to be rewritten and the infobox still needs to be cleaned up, but the article itself is in half-way decent shape. Still not nearly enough on inter-war activities, of course. Do you have anything in your sources that you might be able to add? I'll ask Paul-Pierre Valli if he has anything to add either. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just about to ping you regarding the GAN and I'll look it over later today. Despite looking for quite a while, I have very little info on Béarn's interwar activities. I'll poke around a bit in my files and scanned books, but the bulk of my resources are still unavailable because of asbestos contamination. Have you checked through the Warship International indexes to see if there was anything there? I'll work over the infobox, the lede and add whatever I manage to dig up, but I'm not that hopeful that we'll have enough to pass GAN. I even looked over the article on the French wiki and it isn't much help and doesn't have much in the way of a bibliography. I'd have sworn that there was a book dedicated to the ship in French, but I haven't been able to locate it through Worldcat or publisher's catalogs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Peresvet class battleship
Best wishes Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Petropavlovsk class battleship at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

French battleship Condorcet
I'll spare you the uw-c&pmove...





Come on, you know better than. Copy-paste-moves are tedious for someone to fix. :/ Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Ian!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Petropavlovsk class battleship
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator
Thanks, Dank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response
My apologies concerning the Charles Town expedition. I've not had the availability of editing on Wikipedia like I had a month ago because school started a few weeks ago, and it was hectic, to say the least. The original author told me he'd be available for editing around a month ago, and I seen that he came back to make edits. What else is there to be done for this to become a GA? I did contribute to the article, but it was mainly adding citations and maybe rearranging a sentence or two. I will have some amount of free time for the next few days. LeftAire (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Terribly short notice: Boulder WLM on 15 September
Apologies for getting this out so late, but this is all Pharos' fault. Please blame everything on Pharos.

That said, this message is just to let you know that we're having a photo hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments at 11:00 in the morning of Saturday the 15th in Boulder, probably somewhere around CU, though the exact location hasn't yet been decided. Since you have previously attended or expressed interest in other meetups in the area, hopefully you might be able to come.

Please sign up as soon as possible if you're interested; we'd love to have you along to help postpone the squirrel apocalypse. Or at least get some decent images. -— Isarra ༆ 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ira W. Claflin
Thank you for the review! Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Drive Award

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Count of Porto Alegre
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Thank you very much for having taken some of your time to review Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. I'm replying here to avoid turning the nomination page into a mess, if you don't mind. Here are answers to some of your questions: Please let me know if there is something else that I might be of help. Again, thank you for your review. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He was called the "Gloved Centaur" because he was a cavalry officer known for his polite manners.
 * There are no articles to any of the historical political parties in Brazilian imperial history. Since I'm actually the only person on Wikipedia that has been working on Brazilian-history related articles for years and this will be my last FAC I see no reason to create stubs that no one will bother to improve.
 * The name Hispanic American is well known in fact.
 * There is no modern equivalent to the Brazilian National Guard, an institution that was extinguished in early 20th century. I won't create a stub for the same reasons given above. There are huge gaps on Wikipedia in the history of Brazil. I've trying to fix that for the least years, but I lost interest.
 * The rank of field marshal in Imperial Brazil is not the same thing as the rank of Field marshal that represents the highest rank in some armies. In imperial Brazil the highest rank was "army marshal". Lieutenant general was the second highest rank, and that is told in the lead ("...retiring from his military career as a lieutenant general, the second-highest rank in the Imperial army") and in the main body of text in the article: "Alegre petitioned for, and was granted, a military retirement on 7 July 1856 and was raised to lieutenant general, the second highest rank in the imperial army." Field marshal, on the other hand, was the equivalent to divisional general and that is said in the article: "Marques de Sousa was sent to Montevideo to serve under field marshal (present-day divisional general) Manuel Jorge Rodrigues, who commanded a Brazilian force..."
 * Sturmvogel 66, will you continue your review? --Lecen (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:PolikarpovNB.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PolikarpovNB.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man, I appreciate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lexington FAC
I have made a list of comments at Featured article candidates/USS Lexington (CV-2)/archive1. Please reply. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! You have another star in your sky! FA listed. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Count of Porto Alegre
Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre was promoted just a few minutes ago. I came here to let you know that I'm really grateful for your review and support. I know it isn't easy to read an article about a subject one is not used to, but you did a flawless job back there. Regards, Sturmvogel 66. --Lecen (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to help; it was a quality article that just needed a little bit of tinkering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ironclad Sevastopol
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Chicago
You continue to sport User UChicago. I am wondering if you have any ties to Chicago and whether you might be able to help me identify current Chicago-resident WP:MILHIST members.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I lived in Chicago for about 20 years, but I moved about 5 years ago to Denver. I'm not aware of any Wikipedians in Chicago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Niobe (1849)
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ironclad Petropavlovsk
The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian corvette Navarin
Yes, it is a redundant website. At least in that it uses the same book as a source. That being said, when someone is reviewing the DYK, they don't have to just WP:AGF for the content of the books, but can find it on a website. Speaking as a reviewer (I won't be reviewing this one, of course), I think that would be a good reason to let it be. But you took it out, and I don't want to edit war over this. So you can put it back. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hadn't considered that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously to me, you've got the book. And your credibility (I can see) is impeccable. But I was not being perverse. Glad we are of one mind. I also added a few other minor tweaks. Unfortunately, I don't have the book, so I am working with what I find on line. Happy editing.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I might also suggest that the red link Dardanelles blockade should be red no more. I could start this article, but it would be a pathetic stub. You evidently have the expertise and resources to do something better with it than I could.  Just a thought.  7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is earlier than I normally deal with and I've got nothing on the naval aspects of this war. I only did this article because I was intrigued by the ship's entry in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But carronades could aspire to be long guns. Just kidding.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry, Jesse Elliott and Battle of Lake Erie
With the upcoming bicentennial, I would appreciate it if you would look at Oliver Hazard Perry, Jesse Elliott and Battle of Lake Erie. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that I'll have much to add, but I can look them over for style and prose, if you like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate any help. Its a collaborative process after all. And I spent quite a bit of time of them, some more than others. I figure extra sets of knowledgeable editors' eyes is a good thing. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually agree, too. But I've had contrary experiences. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian corvette Navarin
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian monitor Bronenosets
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Expert Barnstar
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An award
Thank you, you're very kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Ambrose (1903)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Shannon (1906)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Petropavlovsk class battleship GA pass
Hey Sturm, Petropavlovsk class battleship is now a GA. However, there's one little problem that needs to be addressed before a joint good topic nomination. Buggie111 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're such a tease, Buggie! What's the problem? Oh, and thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * De nada. Problem: "In the protection paragraph, cite 12 seems to be used twice. Any way just to use it once?". I take it you've seen the FA offer? Buggie111 (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic is up, see Featured topic candidates/Petropavlovsk class battleships/archive1. Buggie111 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. What FA offer?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ping
User:The ed17 says you might be interested in this book which is sitting next to me at the moment. Hop in to our conversation if you'd like me to look anything up for you. Maralia (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blair, Clay (1996). Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939–1942. Random House. ISBN 0-394-58839-8

TFA
Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've futzed with the blurb a bit, to alter "World War I" to "the First World War" along with a few other minor changes. If I'm right about those, the lead should probably be tweaked too. Maralia (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article's history doesn't show any changes made by you. Please don't change World War I to the First World War, despite what many people think, neither phrase is specifically British English nor American.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had edited the blurb linked above, not the article. Have reverted myself per your reply. Makes no difference to me; was only trying to preemptively avoid national-variety-of-English gripes. You might consider the other change I had made, though: "During the war, the battlecruiser participated in all three of the major North Sea battles of World War I" is somewhat redundant. Maralia (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. I agree that it's rather redundant and will fix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'm still perplexed
Hey Sturm, I see you removed my tag and changed the wikilink at HMS New Zealand. Problem is, the term "examination battery" is still not explained. What is an examination battery? The only thing I could find was mention in reference to St. David's Battery in Bermuda. But that states it is also known as the Examination Battery, not a Examination Battery. Is there a definition used elsewhere than can be linked to? Moriori (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An examination battery is usually the outermost battery of a port's defenses and was called that because it could force vessels to stop and be boarded to check its paper and cargo. Unfortunately, I can't find any useful definition anywhere to be linked or cited, although I think its usage is generally understandable as it is, especially since nobody at the article's FAC or ACR thought it was a concern. Casual readers merely will miss the nuance of an examination battery's role.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed "examination battery" to "land batteries." A perfect fit. Moriori (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Imperator Nikolai I (1860)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: HMS New Zealand (1911)
This is a note to let the main editors of HMS New Zealand (1911) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 19, 2012. 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:



HMS New Zealand was one of three Indefatigable-class battlecruisers built for the defence of the British Empire. The ship was funded by the government of New Zealand as a gift to Britain, and she was commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1912. She had been intended for the China Station, but was released by the New Zealand government at the request of the Admiralty for service in British waters. After a tour of the British Dominions, with an emphasis on a visit to her namesake nation, she was back in British waters at the start of World War I, and operated as part of the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet, in opposition to the German High Seas Fleet. During the war, the battlecruiser participated in all three of the major North Sea battles—Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank, and Jutland. New Zealand contributed to the destruction of two cruisers during her wartime service, but was hit by enemy fire only once and sustained no casualties; her status as a "lucky ship" was attributed by the crew to a Māori piupiu (warrior's skirt) and tiki (pendant) worn by the ship's captain during battle. After the war, New Zealand was broken up for scrap in 1922 in compliance with Britain's tonnage limit in the disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On a random note, I really like the way that TFAs also boost the views of most of the prominent links in the article, even when they're only mentioned in passing. Case in point: . Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a big boost. I don't normally think to check page stats after one of my TFAs but maybe I should do it more often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

November contest
Hi mate, unless I've missed something major, Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III doesn't look like it was eligible for last month's contest -- or did you mean to enter a different article? Incidentally, if you're stopping by the page, be great if you could check/verify my entries... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I really meant this one (Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III (1901) which was promoted on 11 November.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

List of ships called HMS Hood
Hello

List of ships called HMS Hood not HMS Hood (disambiguation) - en.wikipedia changed some years old rules? PMG (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, that's what I'm trying to get fixed as per my post on WT:SHIPS. The standard for RN ship index pages is the bare name, but Hms Hood is a redirect to the battlecruiser. I've requested that an admin delete it, and then I'll rename List of ships called HMS Hood as HMS Hood, with the proper capitalization. Should have been done before, but nobody cared or noticed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for assessment
Thank you for your assessment of the Ripley Davenport article for WP:WikiProject Military History. I have now added section headings to the article in the hope that it will be possible for the "Structure" criterion for B-Class status to be marked as met. (It may not be possible to meet the "Referencing and citation" criterion due to issues discussed on my talk page.) Once again, thanks. :-) Gildir (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I read some of the cited sources, the more suspicious I get, especially about his military service as he's claiming a lot of different things in a fairly short amount of time. But you can only work with the sources that you can find and until somebody seriously debunks his claims, with good evidence, so I don't see that you have much choice. But I must say that I now tend to question his notablity, but exploration isn't my field so I can't really say. I am wondering now if his military career really has much relevance to his activities and if the MilHist tag that I added should be removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Minotaur (1906)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Minotaur
Hey Sturm, I've reviewed the article for GA here - just one small issue with the size of the crew. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the book for Bearn came in today, I'll pick it up tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I 'll be done with classes on Friday and should be able to help out if necessary afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the review for Sara here - nothing major, just some nitpicking. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Great White Fleet
Would love to rework and expand this once finished on the Copland article I'm currently putting through PR. Any suggestions on sources and potential directions to take this? Seems the aspects on ship design and fleet training have been neglected and not much more on political implications from the calls of the fleet in various ports along its route. Jonyungk (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs work. Not very familiar with the US pre-dreadnoughts, but the bibliography looks pretty decent. The sources might lead you in directions to be expanded. I'd add material on foreign reactions, especially the Japanese, and on the voyage itself. List of captains is irrelevant, IMO, but flag officers and squadron organization should be retained, although some reformatting might be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are piles upon piles of newspaper archives on the trip. Australia has most of their old newspapers online, so I'd at least use them for the Australian portion. Albertson's U.S.S. Connecticut: Constitution State Battleship also has a very detailed account of the trip. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. Friedman has a considerable amount on US pre-dreadnought design and the suggestions you make sound like solid ways to go. Jonyungk (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you go through the sources, I'd add your discoveries to the pages of the relevant ships; this voyage was arguably the most important thing that those ships did and it will save time for anyone who wants to expand those articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Will do that. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Saratoga battle stars
I noticed you reverted my change on the number of Saratoga's battle stars. I will not object, but I want to point out that the article's infobox still reads as 7 battle stars, contradicting the body of the article, as it did before I made my edit. Safiel (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you have corrected it. Safiel (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō
This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can 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:

Hōshō was the world's first commissioned ship to be designed and built as an aircraft carrier, and the first aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing aircraft and equipment, and to evaluate operational methods and tactics. She provided valuable lessons and experience for the IJN in early carrier air operations. Hōshō and her aircraft participated in the Shanghai Incident in 1932 and in the opening stages of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. During those two conflicts, her aircraft supported Imperial Japanese Army ground operations and engaged in combat with aircraft of the Nationalist Chinese Air Force. The small size of the ship and her assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft) limited the effectiveness of her contributions. As a result, the carrier was placed in reserve after her return to Japan from China and she became a training carrier in 1939. During World War II, Hōshō participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in a secondary role. After the battle, the carrier resumed her training role for the duration of the conflict and survived the war with only minor damage. She was used as a repatriation transport after the war and was scrapped in 1946. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Tsesarevich (1857)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ndashes and hyphens
G'day, sorry about the mucking around on Op Rosselsprung. Is there a script or tool that can find/fix this sort of syntax problem that I should be aware of? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of, but don't know much about them since many won't run on my Mac. Probably worth poking around to see if any can do that sort of thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Slightly bad news
I had forgotten about List of sunken battlecruisers, which will probably be expected to be part of the BC topic. I might see what I can do with it in the short term (starting with axing Scharnhorst et al). Parsecboy (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleaned this up. I think. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, 7&amp;6=thirteen, but we still need to add citations and such to qualify it for FLC. I'd never even known that this list existed before, but it means that we need another FA to qualify for the FT as we currently have 30. One more from your list of BCs and now another as our total rises to 63 articles in the topic. I guess we'll have to wait for Tiger's impending FAC to get promoted before we can submit it. I've added it to the topic box, see if you like the revised format. User:Sturmvogel_66/Sandbox--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the BC list will bring us to 31, and getting this one to FL will be enough. So Tiger will be nice, but it's not necessary to reach 50%. And the format seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FLC seems slower to promote than FAC so I was figuring on Tiger making it first, but, of course, it really doesn't make a difference which one gets there first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As to such lists, I don't know that there is one that includes the heavy German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee. Just a musing question? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the list really needed? Could you not just merge the information into List of battlecruisers? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sturm, we need the list to be FLC or the topic won't work (since they don't accept A-class), so if we decide to keep the list, we will have to take it to FLC for the topic to be complete.
 * Ed, I would prefer to simply axe the article, since the fate of each battlecruiser is noted in the main list. On the other hand, simple inertia might convince me to keep it, since I've already converted the list into tables and all it really needs are citations (which shouldn't be too hard to crib from the relevant articles, since they're all done now) and some short write-ups for each section. So I guess I could go either way. Any one else think we should just redirect it, before I waste more time working on it? Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see similar lists of sunken BBs and CVs so I'm a bit reluctant to dump it unless we make a clean sweep of them all.

It is viewed a bit more often than I would have suspected at 1200 views in the last 30 days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review...
...of Loughor Castle. Have a good Christmas! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to have so little to do to pass it! Enjoy your vacation as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

 * Thanks, Ed, you too!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks, Kirill.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * And the same to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello, Sturmvogel 66, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 17:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin
Hey. I've seen you around a lot pretty much everywhere on the site. I'm sure you've been asked this before, but have you thought about runnign for adminship? Wizardman 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) I've seen several "admin" questions on Sturm's page, and all of the answer's have been no. Then again, that was a year or so ago. Now me, on the other hand... Buggie111 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but (shudder) no thanks. I've watchlisted a bunch of the processes' and various admin's talk pages enough to know that I don't want the drama with being an admin. I much prefer to spend my energy on creating content. But thanks for thinking of me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a wise choice, Sturm. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, how else could we meet the goals of WP:OMT if I were to spend more of my time on admin drama? Especially since people like Cam have fallen away and others are spending less writing?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we wouldn't. And yes, I know I'm spending less time writing, but hopefully I'm doing just as much good in other areas too. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't pointing fingers because you're not the only OMT person writing less, and I do think that you're doing good things outside of OMT. But pushing some of your A-class articles to FAC would be nice if you've got the time, even if you do need some help with them ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Lexington-class battlecruiser is now User:Jonyungk's, and you know what we're missing from Hawaii. Tosa is a possibility when I get enough time. I also have a draft of Pennsylvania-class battleship in my userspace ... but it's coming slowly, as with everything else I've been doing recently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand. Hell, my own productivity has fallen way off these last six months or so, for all sorts of reasons, so I'm not throwing any stones. Just try to keep it in mind, OK?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll try to finish the Pennsy class article sometime soon; all I need to do is the service history and specifications, although you know how I hate the latter. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's a published book on Pennsy herself like there was for Arizona so the summarized service history will be a bit harder, but you can always swipe at least the basics of the specs from the Arizona article. Fill it out with gun specs and a little more detail and Bob's your uncle. Heck, you might even be able to sweet talk me into helping out ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Milwaukee-class monitor/GA1
There are about five minutes of minor fixes that need to be done before this can be given a GA, but it's in great shape.

On an unrelated note, your user talk is really, really, really long.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been promoted. Please do consider the alt texts though.


 * On an unrelated note, your user talk is really, really, really, really long.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Snicker; you're really not helping though! I really do need to archive it. Thanks for the quick review. Feel free to take a look at Neosho, if you're minded to do another review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kalamazoo-class monitor
Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Petropavlovsk-class_battleship
Hi ! Excuse for my english...In this section: Petropavlovsk-class_battleship you write that Petropavlovsk striking a mine on May 7. But, this journal of April 24 1904 report the news: File:Petropavlovsk destruction 1904.jpeg (the author had a time machine ?), and for ru.wiki the ship striking the mine on March 31...--Midnight bird (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch! You are correct, the ship sank on 13 April (New Style)/31 March (Old Style).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks... :) Another problem... :|


 * In Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894):"Petropavlovsk had Harvey nickel-steel armor imported from the United States."
 * In Petropavlovsk-class battleship: "Petropavlovsk had ordinary nickel steel, while Sevastopol used Harvey armor and Poltava used the latest Krupp armor"
 * --Midnight bird (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Class article is correct. I suggest you go and look at the Italian section of WP:OMT, might interest you more. Buggie111 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)
Regarding your feedback to my Assessment query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships: I believe the article, USS Mahan (DD-364), is now fully referenced. Should time permit, would you consider checking to see whether or not my belief is correct. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! Pendright (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan to stick with the article, thanks to your encouragement and roadmap on how to improve it. Expect more than an occasional yell on your talk page.   Pendright (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I taught myself Wikicode and the various protocols was to find a quality article that I liked and I adapted a lot of the formatting and stuff from it. It was one of Parsecboy's battleship FA-class articles, BTW. So look through the FA and A-class ship articles for something that you like and use that as something to model your own ship articles on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sound advice! BTW, Parsecboy has suggested I look to your articles for guidance.  Again, thanks for sharing your time and talents. Pendright (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Parseboy obviously knows what he's talking about ;-) Glad to help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the poor quality...
...but enjoy what I found today. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, but I've had that book for ages and never even thought to look in it for info on Agincourt. Just never crossed my mind, how odd is that?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't miss out on much! It basically just rehashes Conway's. I can't rescan the picture though – it's from a computer file – so if you like it, you'd have to rescan it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that big a deal. The funny thing is that I used the book extensively for the Japanese pre-dreadnoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And another! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! Funny how stuff keeps popping up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Milwaukee-class monitor
( X! ·  talk )  · @224  · 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Comment
"He seems awfully knowledgeable for somebody with 1000 edits or less."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, based on my brief investigation. Not sure if this is just a coincidence, but it is interesting to look at... TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

CarDiv/CSG lineage
You raise an arguable point, but one that probably both myself and MarcD30319 would disagree with. Would you like to nominate a centralised place for discussion rather than making several talkpage comments on pages that are hardly ever read? WT:MILHIST? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us discuss it on SHIPS instead so that the non-ships people on MilHist won't be bothered with something that they care nothing about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about individual ships, it's about lineage of naval formations - there's an equal argument to put it in Milhist rather than bothering all the civilian shipping people in Ships with something that they care nothing about.... Why don't you ask User talk:Marcd30319 for a tiebreaker- he's the most involved other person, I believe. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Too late, I posted last night already. But I can add a note on MilHist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

VIII Corps
Thanks for reviewing VIII Corps (Grande Armée). For orders of battle, I cite at the first line for the entire section. I must have seen someone do it that way. Please give me an example article of how an OOB should be cited and I'll follow it. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't seen many OBs properly cited to just one source. Generally they're not cited at all or use multiple sources, in my experience. In this case I'd be inclined to either put the cite in the heading (even if that's not supposed to be done) or add an introductory line like: The 13th Brigade, commanded by Colonel-Sergeant Klink, consisted of: and then cite that line. Either way makes it pretty obvious that the cite covers the entire paragraph or section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for USS Dunderberg
KTC (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Gangut (1825)
KTC (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gallant
HMS Gallant (H59)

“The ship's complement was 137 officers and men in peacetime,[1] but (in) increased to 146 in wartime.[2]” Pendright (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd, but awesome, discovery
So I found today that the lead of the Arizona article was translated into Persian. It's really cool how far of a reach Wikipedia has. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is cool, and how very unexpected!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

SMS Budapest
I've begun the GA review for this one. It looks almost ready to pass, but there's a few minor points I'd like to hear your thoughts on. Thanks for your work! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Question?
Paul Fleshman served aboard the USS Mahan (DD 364) from September 1938 until August 1944; the USS Mahan Association has confirmed his service. While aboard, he apparently kept a Diary from December 1, 1941 until April 17, 1944. And it’s available online as Chapter 1 – U.S.S. Mahan, D.D. #364. I’ve read enough of it to appreciate its usefulness, if considered an authentic source to cite. What do you think? I’m still plugging away at your helpful suggestions. As you said, destroyer sources are not easy to locate. But, I have found and ordered four reference books from Amazon that could prove helpful in the process. HAGD! Pendright (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use it, but you need to be careful. See WP:PRIMARY for guidance on using primary sources. First-hand accounts can be useful, but it really depends on what you want to use them for. I've used them several times, mainly to give a feeling of the conditions aboard various ships. And it's really important to try to validate whatever you're intending to use; most sailors didn't know much about what was going on other than on their own ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC):
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation
Hi, Sturmvogel 66. Sometime ago you reviewed Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. I've nominated as FAC the article about Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. He was born in Portugal but fought for Brazil as a navy officer, even leading its navy in the Paraguayan War. He was also a contemporary of the Count of Porto Alegre. Since both articles are similar (although Inhaúma is shorter), I thought you could take a look if you were interested and had the time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: HMS Eagle (1918)
This is a note to let the main editors of HMS Eagle (1918) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 20, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 20, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can 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:



HMS Eagle was an early aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy. Ordered by Chile as the Almirante Latorre-class battleship Almirante Cochrane, she was laid down on 20 February 1913. In early 1918 she was purchased by Britain for conversion to an aircraft carrier. The ship was initially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet and then later to the China Station. Eagle spent the first nine months of World War II in the Indian Ocean searching for German commerce raiders. She was equipped solely with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers until late 1940. She was transferred to the Mediterranean in May 1940, where she escorted multiple convoys to Malta and Greece and attacked Italian shipping, naval units and bases in the Eastern Mediterranean. Whenever Eagle was not at sea, her aircraft were disembarked and used ashore. The ship was relieved by a more modern carrier in March 1941 and ordered to hunt for Axis shipping in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic. After completing a major refit in early 1942, the ship made multiple trips delivering fighter aircraft to Malta to boost its air defences. Eagle was torpedoed and sunk by the GERMAN SUBMARINE U-73 in August 1942 while escorting a convoy to Malta. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded, enjoy it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Monarch
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Svetlana
Your page move needs some work, as there are three non-ship entries: the name, the cruiser class and the TV series. I can see two ways to fix it. Either move the three entries back to the dab page, along with a link to the ship page, or revert the whole thing. Your choice. I have no particular preference. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this; all fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Fusō
I see you're started, I'll just add some stuff to the talk page then start up again in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GAN drive award
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Help!
I’ve still hacking away at your Mahan suggestions, but I am making progress. I have found several items in the Diary of the Mahan sailor that I mentioned, which I plan to use. It’s mostly routine stuff, but more specific than DANFS and a way to limit DANFS citations. My problem: I’ve not been able to come up with the Wiki-codes that would reflect the proper reference and appropriate note references. I’ve spun my wheels for several days now, but no success. So if your offer to help still stands, I’ll take it. Here is what I have: the title of the web article is “Chapter 1 – U.S.S. Mahan, D.D. #364”, Paul Fleshman is the author, it has 31 pages and is dated 1986. “ussmahan.org/Fleshman_Dairy.pdf” will get you there, as well as the web title. Hopefully, you can push me in the right direction. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to download the chapter that you provided a link for, but it's not working. Can you double check that it's correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Try: www.ussmahan.org/Fleshman_Diary.pdf   Pendright (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have used Google and have had good luck, for the most part. Pendright (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly you're asking about, but since the diary is a web resource, go to the cite button and then hit the web button and fill in all of the relevant data. Scroll down to the bibliography section and hit the add citation button when you've positioned the cursor where you want it. Be sure to delete the opening and closing ref tags as you're only using this to format your reference. Cite it just like your other cites, (author, p. #). Let me know if you have any problems with this or if this isn't what you waned help with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged!    Pendright (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * You're quite welcome. Feel free to ask for further assistance as needed. You've got a good base with this article for the other ship in the class and even for the class article. Copy, paste and adjust as necessary! Be sure to look closely at some of the FA-class battleship articles for ideas and text that you can use in your own articles. That's how I learned to write wikicode and how to format my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Two questions:
 * USS Kentucky (BB-6) has a notice at the bottom that it incorporates text from the DANFS. Does it also need to paraphrase the DANFS, or can it use text directly copied from it?
 * Do you have any suggestions for Kearsarge before I take her to A-Class Review?
 * Thanks, Inkbug (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews and the WikiCup
Just a quick note to say that some of your GA reviews are very short. Obviously, a short review is sometimes all that is needed, but, as a rule, shorter reviews are not eligible for WikiCup points. I have not removed any you have claimed, but it's something to remember for the future. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but there's nothing else wrong with the articles that I can see. I can't fault stuff that meets the criteria, even if it's not quite perfect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

GAN
Noticed. Will sift this week. Some of it is incomplete so will add stuff. Dapi89 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Oryol (1854)
Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for USS Ozark (1863)
Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Viscount of Inhaúma
Hi, Sturmvogel 66. Your comments in the FAC nomination of Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma were responded and we did all improvements as you suggested. I ncase there is something else, please let us know. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

USS Osage (1863)
Hello there! Just in case you missed it on your watchlist, I've started the GA review for this here. Just a few small queries. Take care, Moswento talky 09:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuso
Just letting you know, it passed! Good luck with the wikicup also.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  08:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Yamashiro
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Mahan article revised
For the most part, I believe I ‘ve dealt with all your helpful suggestions in my attempt to improve the article. When convenient, I look forward to your reply. Thank you again for your interest and help. Pendright (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC) USS Mahan (DD-364) Pendright (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of time available right now, but I noted a few things and made some changes. Which Farragut-class destroyers do you mean? (there were two classes) Add the propulsion and power info to the infobox. Watch for consistency between she and it when referring to the ship. Use she almost always. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:The ed17/Sandbox/Pennsylvania class battleship
Hey Sturm, this getting close to being complete (it needs an infobox and time for me to trawl through Google Books archives of Proceedings, Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers, etc.), and I thought you might like to have a chance to look at it and add anything before it goes live. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much to comment on, really. Why the cites in the infobox when that info is covered in the main body?, spell out the state in publisher locations in the bibliography, probably excessive coverage of turret armor in the infobox; I normally just give a range for front and side armor while spelling out all the details in the main body. You might add steam pressure and temp to the propulsion section if available and give details as to the deck armor like types of steel used in those three layers. If there was a light armored deck above the main armor deck, add that and explain its purpose (decapping plate, etc.). Otherwise looks pretty good on a cursory read through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have been more clear, I have to revamp the infobox -- it's the one from the original article. :-) Thanks Sturm, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks to be in pretty good shape in terms of format, etc., though I suppose the numbers need to be validated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, interesting problem, aside from the odd divide where 1915–16 magazines only covered either Arizonas launch or Pennsylvanias trials (not both). Because P used Curtis turbines and A used Parsons, the designed shp were different. Sources agree that the former would have had 31,500 shp and the latter 34,000 shp. In service, P attained 29,366 shp, and A 33,376 shp. So, with this difference&mdash;and keeping in mind that P had a slightly higher weight due to being a designed flagship&mdash;why did P hit 21.75 knots on her trials, while A only hit 21 (and only 21.5 knots in 1924)? Also, why were sea trials being conducted in 1918 (at least according to this image)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Arizona conducted machinery trials in 1918 after the repair/replacement of her stripped turbine. I have no idea why neither ship reached their designed shp, nor why Pennsy was faster than Arizona despite less shp; that's why they call shipbuilding an art rather than a science. I think that both ships got nearly all of their new machinery from the cancelled SoDaks; be sure to double check that. Did a little bit of clean up; feel free to revert. Remember that the template for nmi automatically triple converts into mi and km; you don't need to specify that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Quartier Général (1914–1919)/GA1
Hello. I have been a bit busy recently and not had chance to post on here but just wanted to let you know I have responded to your comments at the above review. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Konstantin
The DYK project (nominate) 09:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ship of the line Retvizan (1855)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd opinion
Hi! Could I trouble you to take a look at the Talk:Operation Flash/GA1 and provide advice?

Specifically, the reviewer holds an opinion that specific area where the UNCRO peacekeepers deployed should be termed in the article according to name applied by a variety of sources as "United Nations Protected Area Sector West" and I'm reluctant to use that name because all relevant UN Security Council resolutions dealing with the UNCRO define the area as "Sector West" only.

The former name was applied to the same area by the UNSC during UNPROFOR mission there which expired in 1995 and was replaced by UNCRO mission. I admit that press and other sources used the former name as it was in existence for a relatively long time (since 1992), the same way the sources often called the peacekeepers UNPROFOR even when the new mission was in place (source provided in the review). On the other hand I do not think that anything but the official designation would be proper there and varied application of names should be discussed in the UNCRO article by all means. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look at this tonight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Italian battleship Dante Alighieri
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian submarine AG-22
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:French battleship Henri IV/GA1
I've done a review. Should be easy to fix my concerns.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please, please archive some of your page. It takes noticeably longer to load than most user talk pages.


 * It's a GA now.  S ven M anguard   Wha?


 * P.S. again, please archive some of your page. I have a really good connection, but your page is pretty absurd.
 * Thanks for the review. Feel free to do a few more! ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the call to archive your page ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One of these days, Alice, one of these days!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Hardboiled
Hi, you recently did a GA review of Operation Hardboiled; I've just put it up for FAC and wondered if you had any further comments to help improve it :) --Errant (chat!) 23:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

41 cm/45 3rd Year Type naval gun
Hi, In case it's of use, I've just uploaded another photo of the gun outside the Yamato Museum showing its breech. It's at File:41cm-45 3rd Year Type naval gun outside the Yamato Museum during October 2008.jpg. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. So you're the lucky bastard who got to go to the museum! How was it? When I visited Tokyo back in that same year all I got to go through was the museum of the Ground Self-Defense Forces, which was pretty cool, but didn't involve any ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was pretty good - it doesn't have much English language signage, but the displays were very interesting and the huge model of Yamato was fascinating. I would have liked to have gone to the JMSDF museum as well (which is across the road), but ran out of time. I didn't realise that the GSDF had a museum - something to add to my list of things to see next time I visit Japan. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ...although if you don't archive your talk page, which is now at an absurd 462,913 bytes, I may take this away. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * C'mon, it's still a baby! Only two years old! Thanks Ed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK
FYI I nominated an article you wrote here. Lovely article, so I thought our readers deserved to read it :) -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it; no problem. I've got my eye on the nom in case any issues arise. If you like my stuff, I've got several GANs pending that need reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for I-351-class submarine
Chamal T •C 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 41 cm/45 3rd Year Type naval gun
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)