Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 6

Help needed
Hi all. I know this is a Phase V article, but I need some help with High Seas Fleet. My goal is to push it to FA so it can run on the main page on 31st May (this year is the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland). I've got the article worked out, but there won't be time to run an ACR and still have time for the FAC, so I need some help from you guys to take a look and see what I missed. I should have about 2 weeks before my current FAC closes, so that should give us plenty of time to iron out any problems. Dan has agreed to copyedit the article once it's done, and any other help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What to do with non-OMT era lists?
Ok. As I have been ducking in and out of articles in our scope, I came across List of battleships by country. Here,, there are links to lists of carracks, galleons, battleship and other ships by country, all under the name "Battleship", i.e. List of Japanese early battleships. The main list was created by User:Spooky Mulder. So, my question is, what should we do withthese pages? Forcefully change thme to reflect OMT? Leave them the way they are? Buggie111 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hesitant to force our consensus-agreed definition on editors outside of our project. But then, the article is clearly within our scope, and the talk page notes that not everyone agrees with the author's broad use of the term.
 * I think the best course of action is to trim out the obvious non-battleships (the first two "era" sections are all ships of the line), and then expand the lead to better explain the confusion among labels, that most people thing of battleships as "pre dreadnoughts and later", but the term is also sometimes applied to a number of ironclads as well. I don't think it would be hugely controversial, considering that the article is really a list of lists, and no actual content would be lost.
 * As for the other articles, we should discuss the matter on the talk pages. Our consensus is pretty good, and made with a solid understanding of naval history as backed up by a number of professional sources. If we try to enforce consistancy across all of the articles, we'd probably not run into much trouble from the minority term users.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

US Navy WW2 Italian warship recognition guide now on Hyperwar
The ever-excellent Hyperwar website has recently uploaded the USN's World War II-era Italian warship recognition guide. It's available here and has lots of excellent PD drawings and photos. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The British warship recognition guide has recently been uploaded, and is available here. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the German guide is now also online (and has lots of excellent drawings). Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Kita ACR
As a note the A class review for Operation Kita, which is within the scope of this project, will probably be closed (as a promotion) tomorrow unless there are any further comments. I'm probably going to take this to a FAC, so would welcome any comments/suggestions before this time. The ACR is at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Kita. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible references
I think the 'main' members of our little project will already know of (or own!) some of these reference works, but I found a nice little list of books if anyone stumbles onto our page and would like to help us out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Formatting question
Im starting to do some work on the American battleship class articles and noticed that the formatting of the infoboxes is irregular between articles. Specifically, the armament and armor sections vary between line breaks and bulleted lists. Consider Pennsylvania class battleship (line breaks), Nevada class battleship (bulleted), New York class battleship (both). What is the preferred style? Bonewah (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at WP:SHIPS some time ago and I believe the general consensus was that bulleted lists are bad. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky FAR
About a month ago I posted on Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66) about the condition of the article. It would have been next on my list for FAR but I did Daniel Webster instead. This will allow OMT extra time to work on Kentucky before I take it to FAR. As long as Daniel Webster remains at FAR is the amount of time left before Kentucky goes to FAR. Brad (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We may be able to merge Illinois and Kentucky into Iowa class battleship... there's enough references to warrant separate articles, but I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to include the same information in the class article. I wouldn't want to do it without contacting Tom first, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to merge them into the class article as there's really not much point of separate articles for ships that were never even completed, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the class article was expanded to the proper length with more details I think Kentucky would be an easy merge. Illinois seems to go onto some off topic details about the Montana class. Brad (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on style
Hi folks this question should be right up your shipping lanes. I am reworking Operation Slapstick a British WWII landing at Taranto in Italy. As the British fleet approached the harbour the two Andrea Doria class battleships were seen leaving. Now do I need to prefix the Italian ship names with HMS - USS whatever the Italian equivalent is? Looking through your lists I cannot find anything. Thanks in advance.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a stylistic decision. Used in isolation, I prefer the prefix, but it's kinda pointless when you're listing a bunch of His Majesties ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Italian ships even have an official prefix? I haven't heard of one, but that's not my area of study. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible pics
Bunch of painting scans have been uploaded. Some of them include british warships such as:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-trafalgar-1898-24670

©Geni 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan BC
Hello

I have question - I can`t find such topic for Japan BC. There is no such topic? All articles are at least GA. PMG (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the topic was ever nominated. I'd ask Cam, as he wrote most of the articles. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany is complete
Hey all, thought I should share this with you all: Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Germany/archive1. It's been a long time coming. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! What's next now that you've finished off most, if not all, of the German ironclads? Cruisers and destroyers? I'm sure that there are some S-boat articles crying out to be written as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I still have the coastal defense ships to do as well. I might take on the bird farms next (which would allow me to create a Capital ships of Germany topic (with the ironclads, BBs, BCs, and CVs for subtopics). Then again, I have the armored cruisers done, so I might move on to the rest of the light and heavy cruisers. I guess we'll see, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to stop writing for a few days and celebrate. Seriously. That's been years in the making. Congratulations. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review of HMS Vanguard
I'm having difficulties with my reviewer in Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)/GA1 as he wants a detailed explanation as to why she became obsolete and was scrapped in 1960. I believe that a simple statement that she was obsolete suffices and he disagrees. Please weigh in with your opinion so we can put this to be one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
When are we activating the rest of the phases? Phase I seems well on its way. WikiCopter 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, when the current phase is roughly 90-95% complete. We want the next phase to activate as he last phase is finishing up, so that we can transition from one to another with little to no down time. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - British battleships...
Some of you might have spotted that there is a new (and rather useful, in my not-so-unbiased opinion) source of info on British ships over at GLAM/NMM. Most of the British ships are currently Starts, which suggests that the NMM info will probably have something to add (it tends not to for articles which are well on the way to FA status). Is it worth a few of us systematically updating the British battleships with the NMM's data? (This would also be pretty useful in scoping out what we can do with the rest of the NMM information :-) ) The Land (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ACR for HMS New Zealand
The A-class Review for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer an opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser
A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ye gods. *facepalm*. The Land (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick question:
This is slightly off topic (but not by much), but does anyone have access to the 1922-1946 edition of Conway's? I need the dates the three pocket battleships were laid down (because Groner never gives the laid down dates, just launching and commissioning), and their page is annoyingly skipped in the google books scan. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deutschland 5 Feb 29; Admiral Scheer 25 Jun 31; Admiral Graf Spee 1 Oct 32--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. Is that page 227 or 228? Both are omitted in the google books preview. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

List of battleships organization
I know this will be sometime away, but I think a plan should be developed for List of battleships. An editor commented on the talk page of List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union, about why so much "history" is in the article, why not just a table, few notes. This got me htinking about the situation with List of battleships. Are we goingto write a paragraph long history for each ship? This, at least in my eyes, seems extremely hard/severe. Buggie111 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather like the amount of detail that's presented in the featured lists that we've done so far. Those have a paragraph or so on each class, including the single ship classes. Not too much detail and not too little, just right! I'll grant you that it's a lot of work, but think of the satisfaction that you'll feel once you've completed one of those monsters! As for the list of battleships, that should probably be built by subst. the national lists, if we can do that. Otherwise it's just a lot of duplication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pointless to repeat the content from the lists by country in the general list, either manually or by transclusion. I would prefer a single sortable table, with links provided to country-specific lists at the top. Yoenit (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I have envisioned is a list that is essentially a table of contents for the national/regional lists. We'd have a couple paragraphs on each sub-list with a main, with at most a table of each battleship with maybe date of launch and class. It would be exceedingly excessive (how's that for redundant?) to have a paragraph for every ship or even to duplicate the tables from the sub-lists. The paragraphs should essentially be adaptations of the lead sections of the sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

USS Kentucky FAR
nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs some maintenance by editors with access to the relevant sources. It should be savable as an FA, but at the moment it's being neglected. Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion of whether this FAR should move to a formal discussion about delisting the article has begun. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

New criteria for the Titan's Cross?
In looking at the criteria for the Titan's Cross, given that we only issue three variants of the award, I wonder if my fellow OMT members would object to adding one additional criteria point to the three we currently have. As it stands now, the criteria are:
 * 1) Editors are cordially requested not to nominate or vote for themselves.
 * 2) Nominees should generally be members of the Operation.
 * 3) Nominees should generally receive the Titan's Cross variants in their order of arrangement (Bronze, Silver, Gold).

What I would like to add is a point between #2 and #3 to make require (within limits of course) candidates for the award to have already received both the WikiChevrons and the WP:SHIPS barnstar, which would result in the following proposed criteria listing:


 * 1) Editors are cordially requested not to nominate or vote for themselves.
 * 2) Nominees should generally be members of the Operation.
 * 3) Nominees should generally have already been awarded both the WikiChevrons and the Ships Barnstar.
 * 4) Nominees should generally receive the Titan's Cross variants in their order of arrangement (Bronze, Silver, Gold).

Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

General discussion of special projects
Posting a brief note here to alert anyone watching this page of the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, regarding the special projects in general. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

bahamut0013's administrator candidacy
A member of the project, bahamut0013, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of bahamut0013's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one Buggie111 (talk)

Reviewers needed
We have a number of articles at ACR that fall under our rubric. Please take some time and consider if they meet our A-class criteria!

HMS Queen Mary

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

Iowa class battleship

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one Buggie111 (talk)

BB portal
Since Bahamut is no longer with us, we need to think about the portal. I was looking at it today with the thought that we should try to push it to featured status in his honor. I noticed the the content page is badly out of date; I went though and fixed what I could, but others may want to check it as well. I think we should try to get in the habit of updating the page every time an article passes a substantial review. Anyone have any ideas/comments? Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. i'd suggest also updating the DYK list, as MBK004 is inactive. Buggie111 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we had any recent DYKs? I think the vast majority of Sturm's and my recent articles haven't been battleship related (or didn't qualify for DYK if they were), and I don't think anyone else has really been writing OMT articles. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can return to my May of '10 style of writing if that is necessary (no, I won't, don't worry). I would bet that there might have been a few DYK's since November of last year, but i think our current amount is also enough. Also, do you think we might need to do some emergency recruitment? We had nine of 22 people respond to the notification about baha. I could go through the member list and ping anyone with an interest in maritime warfare or BB's, if you would like. Buggie111 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much recruitment will help. You really just have to be interested in the specific topic. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Might want to check to be sure even older DYKs are included in the list - I know back when I checked it (quite) awhile back the DYK section didn't seem to be regularly updated. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. THere are three editors on MILHIST's member page that express interest in BB's (none are OMT members). There's also the option of altering hte welcome template to list each special project. It might be able to put life back into Great War and Brothers at War. Think about it: Do we want to be in such a situation five eyars from now, where there and only five editors left working on this sspecial project, beset by FAC's, FAR's and sockpuppets of the evil AliceBobCarol, who by the way, is interested in photos :)? Buggie111 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

topic box for British dreadnoughts
I was really bored one day and built a draft for the good topic for British dreadnoughts, even though it's quite a while away.

Two questions though, should this include HMS Eagle (1918), which was a BB ordered by Chile, bought by the UK and completed as a birdfarm. And how does the layout look? I've ordered things chronologically and kept the classes together. If Eagle is added it will lengthen the middle column, though, which might unbalance the look of the topic box. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't include Eagle because she wasn't started or built by the British as a BB. I'd leave her for a list of aircraft carriers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why divide into pre-dread and dread? Don't see any worth. Buggie111 (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too many articles. There's already 55 with only the dreadnoughts! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, and I agree with Ed on Eagle. I do have one question, however: will Eagle be part of your South American BB topic, Ed? Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-dreadnoughts will just about double it again and can wait until later, IMO. You can see how daunting this topic is because of its size, there's no need to magnify the problem. Nice thing about ships is that ship classes are a small, easily doable topic, that will feed into the larger topics. It's important not to let yourself get discouraged because there's so much to do. This is a huge project and it's best to keep your sights on the smaller class topics until the end.
 * Eagle should be part of the South American BB topic as she was ordered by Chile, even if she never served with them. Same with Agincourt. Which reminds me...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Agincourt also be in the Turkish topic? Buggie111 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want it to be, along with all of the other ships ordered by Turkey, but never delivered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio issue
I just noticed that HMS Prince of Wales (53) has text copied directly from Garzke & Dulin's British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II - we need to check the other articles Thurgate has written to see if similar problems exist. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DoY and KGV both have copyvios from the smae book in the service history section, Anson and Howe don't have any. Will check others on his to-do list. Buggie111 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lions and Vanguard don't have any. I seriously should get to work on the Richielu. Buggie111 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because Sturm did Lion and Vanguard :P Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, never hurts to check. Someone should go over Anson and Howe, just in case I did miss something (my service history edits to Anson wern't disturbed (if you want to put it that way), but I don't remember the design section). Buggie111 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Post 1930 BB topic box
In the interest of possibly motivating some of us, I present a large topic box that already well over half done. The biggest challenge is, I think, to write the list for this topic as it will have to explicate a lot of the design decisions made by each country.

I find these sorts of things a huge help as a motivator as it readily identifies what needs to be done and helps to keep you focused on your goal. Heck, this topic is already more than half-way to Featured Topic status!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, is this a viable topic given that all of these ships will be incorporated into national topics as well? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just curious. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this as deviating away from List of x battleships with List of battleships/battlecruisers topic as the main one. If we wanted as mayn FT's as we could get, I'd be fine with writing a topic about List of battleships wo participated in a battle whose name contains the letter E. However, that would be, put bluntly, stupid. If we wanted motivation, we could copy the code for this tiouc over, just never nominate it. We'd already be happy enoug hwith all the FAC's and GAN's (or would we ? :) Buggie111 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this as a useful way of examining late-period battleship design, and so forms a coherent and useful topic, IMO. There's no limit to how many topics an article can be in, provided that it's relevant. My Courageous-class ship articles are in the large RN BC topic and in their own class topic which has an additional article about their service as carriers that's not relevant to the BC topic. Parsec's German armored cruisers are in the overall German armored cruisers topic as well as their individual class topics, although I think that the latter should have been superceded by the larger topic. You're right, Buggie, about the potential for pointless topics like the one you mentioned, but they'd never get past the voters at WP:FTC. We tend to organize things by country, but why couldn't we organize a topic by time, across national boundaries to explore each countries' design philosophy? The topic above is one attempt to do so. I based this off an already existing template, so obviously some other editor feels that there's value in organizing things this way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think that splitting the dreadnaughts into FT's pre- and post-Treaty makes a lot of sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Sturm. Would it make more sense to stretch it slightly to include the Nelsons so the main article would be Treaty battleship? They were designed under essentially the same design restrictions as the early classes in the topic, and would be logically included when talking about the impact of the naval disarmament treaties on ship design. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Parsec! We could then also make one under Dreadnought covering 1906-22 and Pre-Dreadnought covering 18something or other-1905. Buggie111 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You could do that, Parsec, or you could split the topic above into Treaty-constrained designs, including the Nelsons, and post-Treaty unconstrained designs like Yamato, Lion, Iowa, etc. And then do early dreadnoughts like Buggie suggested. Pre-dreadnoughts could also be their own topic, although I'm not really sure about any real viable sub-divisions for them, like we can easily do with the dreadnoughts. And the size of that topic is scary, as it's probably over 150 ships in total (Hell, there are 34 Russian pre-dreadnoughts alone, and they're not even serious contenders in that arms race.) The great thing is that topics can cover almost any grouping of articles if you can find a reasonable principle around which to organize the list article. Trans-national topics are, I think, the most demanding of the list article as it should do a lot of compare and contrasting of the various approaches to the topic. Possibilities that come to mind are Treaty cruisers, ASW ships of WWII, fleet carriers of WWII, AA cruisers of WWII, post-WWII destroyers, Cold War anti-aircraft missile ships, etc. The possibilities are limited only by the editor's time, knowledge, and sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but really only a handful weren't constrained by the treaties, so the topic would be limited to the Yamatos, Super Yamatos, the H class, and the Montanas. Everything else was designed under the treaty system, including the escalator clause for the Iowas, for example&mdash;even the Bismarcks were legal under the escalator clause by the time work began. As for pre-dreadnoughts, there is a problem with sub-dividing them. There were some trends but they weren't widely adopted nor did they account for significant groups of ships (for example, ships armed with all quick-firers before the technology could be scaled up to 12 inch guns - this was mainly a German/French thing that accounted for maybe 15 ships). Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about the predreadnoughts. As for the post-treaty ships, I'd be inclined to ignore the residual restriction to 16-inch guns because nobody except the Japanese were really working on anything larger. But, again, it would really be up to the editor of the list article how how he wanted to define the topic. A case can certainly be made to split it using several different criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I made the post-1930 topic box, but I don't remember why I used 1930. I think it was because the G3/Nelson/Lexington classes were vastly different from the ships designed in the 1930s. We really could split it along multiple ways; it may be good to hash this out now. Do we want one huge topic that will probably be rejected for being too big? Should be use battleship as the main topic, with dreadnought etc. and the country lists below, and the country lists forming subtopics (or dreadnought, pre-dreadnought, etc. forming subtopics?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Nelsons were explicitly limited by the Treaty, but that's not the case for all the other post-WWI ships like the Admirals, G3, N3, South Dakotas, Lexingtons, Tosas, Amagis, etc. So I could see one topic covering everything from Dreadnought up to, but not including, the Nelsons. Then another that covers the Nelsons and everything after them. This latter could possibly be split into Treaty-limited and two escalator clause/unconstrained designs (like Lion, Bismarck, Yamato, Iowas, etc.) topics. I really don't see why the super all-dreadnought topic should be a problem at WP:GTC on account of its size. Having promoted a bunch of GT/FTs in my time, my only concern would be the significant investment of time required to add the GT code to each article. But perhaps if we volunteer to help with that, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
 * I don't see us using the battleship article as the topic article until we do the mega topic covering all BBs, both predreadnought and dreadnought. For that one we'll probably be limited to using the country lists and class subtopics instead of the full panoply of all 300+ ship articles. Maybe I'll play around with a topic box for all the dreadnoughts since I already have ones built for the Brits and Russians and I can swipe the code for the Germans.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, Sturm. The Washington Naval Treaty is the right dividing line - so put the Nelsons in with the other treaty battleships. It would also be nice if the box could somehow indicate which ships/classes were built, which were started, and which were only design concepts. The Land (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruiser topic
It's just occurred to me that we're a lot closer to completing the overall battlecruiser topic than any of the other biggies:

This design is a little lopsided since I dislike breaking up classes, but that's not a big deal. Oddly enough, the Americans are in the worst shape, but it wouldn't take much to get them up to snuff. The interesting thing is that we're only five FAs away from qualifying for a FT right off the bat, thanks to Parsecboy's work, and we already have six articles at A-class. I'd suggest that we hold off on submitting this, even if we get everything else up to GA in the meantime, until we get those five articles promoted and can bypass GTC entirely. I'll claim dibs on Lex and Sara as I have a good technical history of both ships. Getting the main battlecruiser article up to GA will be a PITA as people keep on getting stuck on what is a battlecruiser because of careless usage by historians who don't know any better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take "what is a battlecruiser?" for $500, Alex. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One big thing that will help us with the main article is that we've already fought the "the Scharnhorsts aren't battlecruisers" battle. The article will be substantially cut down once we remove the material pertaining to them and the Deutschlands. I seem to think I have a copy of the Warship International with an article on the Alaskas, so I might try to hammer out at least GAs on Guam and Alaska, but I'd be very much open to assistance from anyone who has good references for them. I know Ed wrote the class and Hawaii articles, so he might be able to help me out there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bushranger, how's the US BC list coming along in your userspace? If anyoned wants help on Guam, I'm fine. Buggie111 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we are six articles away from an FT. Buggie111 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my math was off; the topic is 49 articles, not 45 and we've got 18 FA/FL-class articles already. So seven more to go. Why do you think we need a list of battlecruisers article for this topic, Buggie? AFAIK, the battlecruiser article itself serves as the topic article, not a list, unlike all the national BC topics. Once Eagle is promoted, I'll probably nom Courageous for my next FAC. I think that the main technical reference for the Alaskas is Friedman's book on US cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for butting in here, why is it BCs of Germany and Russia but BCs of the Royal Navy and United States Navy. Should they not all be the same ie the country or the navy? Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, people might want to see something like List of battleships. Just sayin'. Buggie111 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim - you're fine, esp. when it's a really good question! ;-) Buggie - I think Sturm's right, but we might want to add a hatnote to the top of battleship and battlecruiser pointing people to the list. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We used the national names for Germany and Russia because the name of the navies changed when the regimes changed. I think that the default is the navy name, but we can always use a redirect to prettify things if we want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Buggie, I'm going to try to work on Guam here over the next few days or so, you're free to help if you want. I would imagine that Battlecruiser would be the capstone article, with List of battlecruisers as the first article listed in the topic. What we are forgetting are the Japanese battlecruisers, which will add nine articles (and require five further FAs), although of those, 3 are FAs and 4 more are As (remind me again why we haven't turned them into a topic yet?). Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From a glance, List of battleships includes battlecruisers (look up Indefatigable if you want proof0 We could move the page and, for both topics, create a double BB/BC +list lead article, like the Courageous topic.

'bout Guam, sure. Buggie111 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks nice, but the Alaskas don't belong in it any more than Scharnhorst or Lutzow did. (ducks and runs away) :-) The Land (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * * runs after screaming insults*. Buggie111 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bushranger, how's the US BC list coming along in your userspace?" Erm...well...I completely forgot I was supposed to work on the thing? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, I completely spaced about the Japanese. I'll add them to this template and submit a national topic for them in a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, I'd oppose adding the list of BBs and BCs to this topic as it's going to be a monster, covering every single class and singleton. That's work that we don't need to do until the very end. I could see a list of battlecruisers as relevant, even though that would still be a PITA to build.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You listed your name next to the article, so I properly assumed... Buggie111 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot about it with my WikiBreak. I'll see if I can get in gear to work on it some possibly. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've posted the revised topic box to include the Japanese. That gives us 21 FA/FL class articles out of 29 needed for the FT as Parseboy noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sturm, like I said, we don't need to include the list in the topic. As long as it's in a hatnote in the main article, I think we'll be all right. We do need to remove the Alaskas from this, though. While there is scholarly debate over what they should have been classified as, they weren't officially classified as such. The Land and I had a big discussion about this in the class article's FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That puts us at 20 for 27. Should I update the pages? Buggie111 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might be 20 for 26 depending on how the FTC people like to name it. The list will be redundant if we remove Alaska, as it would cover only the Lex's. Why is the pic of Von der Tann, and not Indefatigable? She was the first one, AIR. Buggie111 (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, deleted the Alaska's. I'm not sure that we need a list of US BCs as the Lex class article covers that. However, it does serve as a nice marker that they're not Russian. I'll leave it in place for right now. I'm not wedded to the current pic, suggestions are welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can just imagine the following:

Buggie111 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ivan Stepanovich Yumashev: Tovarish Stalin, you called for me?
 * Stalin: Da. I propose to build two battlecruisers, anmed the USS Saratoga and USS Lexington
 * Yumashev: Why?
 * Stalin: Do not question me, or else you vill die. Now build! And don't forget about those swords i ordered
 * Sturm - we can make an argument to keep the list of US BCs based on the notion that the Alaskas were popularly known as battlecruisers, so one of the articles in the topic should discuss that. Also, are you going to include the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten all about them. Since I'd prefer that people don't think that they're a Japanese design, I've added an identifier to clarify things. That takes us to 21 of 28 needed FAs. I hope you don't mind, Buggie, but I've deleted your alternate design; it's easy enough to add a list of BCs to the topic box if that's what we decide to do. Now I have another question: if the Alaska's are out, what about the other cruiser-killer designs like B-65 and Stalingrad? Now the latter is already in the Russian topic so I'm reluctant to toss it, but if we're gonna be consistent...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Even more topc boxes
Just for another little dose of motivation, we are more than halfway done with an overall Russian BB topic. Also, when we promote all stub-andB class articles within our scope to GA, we will be halfway done! And I mean halfway done as in half of our articles will be GA's or higher! Buggie111 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Image ruling on line drawings from Brassey's?
Nikkimaria raised the issue of the artist who drew the line art for Brasseys during the HMS Eagle (1918) FAC. I know that this was resolved on another OMT FAC within the last year. Does anyone remember which one?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I commented on the Eagle FAC with a suitable solution. Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of Featured article candidates/Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre/archive1? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably the one, although I note that Jappalang adopted Parsec's solution rather than giving a solid answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruisers of Japan nominated at Good topics
I've gone ahead and nominated this at Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Japan/archive1. Feel free to comment on the nomination and to help fix any issues. It would be nice if Cam or Ed has the time to take some of these A-class articles to FAC to speed up the completion of our overall battlecruiser Featured Topic. If RL prevents that, no big deal, we'll get there sooner or later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian BB topic
I've been working of the list of dreadnought battleships of Russia enroute to a good topic and Buggie's asked me to consider stopping work on that article and to move all that content over to the list of battleships of Russia that he's been slowly working on in his user space. I'm not opposed to doing so, although we'll have to merge the one into the other. At any rate, the dreadnought topic only needs the list to pass FLC to qualify as a topic, but the predreadnought topic is only about half-way done. Here's their current status:

As much as I hate writing lists for FLC (I have to leave out what?), I kinda like having separate ones for predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts as that would allow us to distinguish between them in the body of the topic box, much like the national lists do for the proposed battlecruiser topic. However, this would raise the question of what we'd use for the topic lead article. I doubt anyone's really in favor of dual headers and a consolidated list of battleships of Russia would serve nicely (and reduce the need to write two lists). However, this isn't that big of a topic (45 articles if we have one consolidated list) and is reasonably manageable. The Royal Navy list of dreadnoughts numbers 55 articles alone and there are at least that many more for the predreadnoughts. Do we want to want to break what we've established as precedent (with Parsec's enormous German BB topic) and split them up? As I've been writing this, I think that I've pretty well convinced myself that we should have a consolidated topic, but I'd welcome your opinions regardless. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean about writing lists. Based on my German BB topic, there's good precedent for doing them all together (though not for the UK and probably not the US either), but I also don't think what I did should necessarily decide how every other national navy is done. I could really go either way on it, given that the UK and US will be split like this regardless. I do, however, really like the big lists - they're so much more impressive :) Parsecboy (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that US BBs would really need to be split as there are only a few oddballs like Maine and Texas that aren't in the BB-xx sequence, which would put their total around 69 or so, barely bigger than your German BB topic. I confess that I like looking at the really big topics as well; I expect to get a lot of satisfaction from my 89-article British DD topic, once I finish the trivial task to writing the remaining 50 or so articles needed and take the crown of the biggest topic away from you ;-) That said, there are plenty of easily finished class topics that must be done before the big topic is even close to being completed and it's probably best to focus on getting those done rather than dream about the big topic somehow finishing itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions
Hey all. I'm putting the finishing touches on a GT for German heavy cruisers, but I have a couple of questions. For the topic boxes, which would be better:

or

Also, in the main list, the box on the P class cruisers looks a little ridiculous to me as it currently stands. Would it make more sense to only have one row (i.e., "P1–P12" instead of 12 mostly empty rows)? Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the former version as I strongly prefer to keep ships in a class together. I'm a little confused by your question about the P-class. What and where are you talking about?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I was thinking as well. As for the P class, this is what I'm asking about. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, how silly of me not to figure it out. Definitely delete the extra rows; only if there's any significant differences/info should you break out the additional ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona (BB-39)
A request for help: WT:MILHIST. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Facebook
Saw we have a group page on Facebook. Just out of curiosity, whose posting the updates? Buggie111 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me, although I kind of forgot about it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh say can you see...Tennessee?
While hunting for too-small cats, I came across this disgusting mess. Ugh. Is any of this worth salvaging into the main article or should I just nominate the lot for deletion? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all from DANFS – whoever wrote that really liked that ship. So there is material that can be salvaged, but it's really just waiting for someone to get interested to throw it all together concisely with other sources. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of it can be salvaged, but the main article is a mess too. All of those tables need to go, for starters. I'd suggest starting a new draft in userspace rather than trying to parse all of that material. FWIW, I have the Warship Profile on Tennessee (Sturm probably does as well), so if anyone's interested in working on it, I can probably lend a hand. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just thinking about this yesterday. Gotta convince those in favor of keeping the tables to delete them, as a starting point. Buggie111 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) now open
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) now open
The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback please...
I was doing some work on Washington Naval Treaty, which is a bit of a neglected subject, and I decided to make a graph of battleship displacement vs date laid down to illustrate its effect. Let me know if you can think of ways to improve the result. :-) The Land (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'd add Russia, but she didn't sign the treat and I'm biased. :) Buggie111 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Soviets did sign the Anglo-Soviet Quantitative Naval Agreement of 1937, which brought them into the Second London Treaty, and therefore into the naval arms control system. On that basis, I'd say they should be included as well.
 * The graph appears to be missing a couple of mid/late-war designs, including Design A-150 battleship and Alsace class battleship. Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, they are both difficult cases. While I have generally tried to avoid including designs that were never started on, I have already made an exception for the French Lyon which was authorised, largely designed, and due to be ordered on 1 Jan 1915, but cancelled a few months beforehand. I wondered about doing with Jean Bart what I had done with Hood, and including the ship actually built as a separate datum from the one originally ordered - which would have been quite similar to the figures for Alsace. But the A-150 design seems to have been another step removed from being ordered as the Yamato class hadn't been finished. And no-one knows what their actual specification was.
 * Re the Russians - along with the Austro-Hungarians, Brazilians and Chileans, they didn't really participate in battleship building post-WWI so the graph wouldn't show a contrast in behaviour, just a dead end!
 * Another thought; would it be helpful for me to mark ships that were never completed with different styles of points to those that were? Thanks for your comments though! The Land (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, actually. I see there is a source with a good estimate of displacement for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship - so perhaps Russia would be a viable inclusion after all... The Land (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Soviets did plan the Stalingrad class battlecruisers, which could go in the graph as well. Sturmvogel wrote that article as well so you should be able to use that for displacement. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There were also the Kronshtadt class battlecruisers begun before WWII.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the O-class battlecruiser, which were close to being built. You could always include "other countries" for A-H/Arg/Bra/Chi/Gre/Port/Spa/Neth and define it in the image captions – it's always good to give a full picture. The issue of overcrowding could be a problem though. Definitely leaving that one up to you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Battleship scan-a-thon and what we can do to help
Hey guys, Dominic over at NARA has a day here devoted to battleships. See User_talk:Dominic. To help him out (and keep stuff like this going in the future), should we/can we organize something between us to put the images in articles and/or improve a couple articles that use media they upload to the Commons? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand FAC needs reviewers
The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A question to the wise..r
Between Christmas, writing about Andre Johnson and Plants versus Zombies, I've forgotten about the Petropavlovsk class, something I wanted to get to and finish before my summer break. My question is this: Should I modify the "History" section at Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) to something akin to the ones at Sevastopol and Poltava, or should I keep it? It looks rather good, cited with several sources and everything, but it would be rather, substandard compared to the other ship pages for that class. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruiser FT and definition
This is the current status of the global battlecruiser featured topic:

Including the Alaskas, we need six more FA-class articles before we can submit this as FTC; excluding them, we need five more. I believe that we should include the Alaskas for several reasons:
 * Battlecruiser is often used as an intermediate designation for ships between full-sized battleships and heavy cruisers, which fits all of our cruiser-killers.
 * Even though they were formally termed cruisers by the US Navy, as were the B-65 cruisers by the IJN, they were designed as cruiser killers and we already have all of the other cruiser-killer classes included in our existing battlecruiser GTs. If we want to be consistent about what we call BCs; we either need to add the Alaskas or we need to modify all the existing GTs to exclude the other cruiser-killer designs. I think that it makes more sense to add them, but some of y'all may disagree.

In other news, the FAC for New Zealand needs reviewers and I plan to nominate Akagi with Cla68 once I get home next week. So that will be two more down if they get promoted. I'll start another solo FAC after New Zealand, and I'll work on Lexington and Saratoga beginning next week, but it would be great to get some of the other A-class articles into FAC to speed things up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (unlurking) If you already have Lion and Princess Royal at FA, shouldn't it be relatively easy to bring the class article up to strength, ditto Indefatigable class article once New Zealand is at FA. And contrariwise, can the Courageous class article beget some (F)A material down to Glorious and Furious? GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, but there's little point to doing so since the grand FT will absorb all the smaller FTs and GTs. Why create more work for the FT delegates than we have to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about the class articles themselves, not the topics. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. It wouldn't be too hard to do them, but I'm just focusing right now on existing A-class articles which (presumably) would need less work to pass FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to take out the Alaskas and B-65s. They were always cruisers at the time, some people since have said "oh, they were a bit like battlecruisers", but that's enough to warrant their inclusion in a list of battlecruisers. The Land (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed, but if we do that then we'll need to delete all of the cruiser-killer designs, which also include the Kronshtadts, Stalingrads, Os and Design 1047 articles. And considering that the Kronshtadts were redesigned to use the same guns as the Bismarck-class BBs, I'm not sure that deleting them is justifiable even though their formal role never changed. And if we do decide to delete them from this topic then we need to be thorough and delete them from OMT entirely and amend our existing G/FTs as well.
 * Like I said, I think we can justify their inclusion in OMT under the larger definition of battlecruiser as a ship larger than a cruiser and smaller than a battleship that isn't a carrier. This is exactly why the modern Petr Veliky-class large missile cruisers were called battlecruisers by many NATO sources during the Cold War. (We can exclude it from OMT by formally focusing on gun-armed ships, if that's a concern.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you'd have to take them out of Operation Majestic Titan. OMT can have as wide a scope as it wants and would be quite justified in taking a very broad interpretation of its mission. But I'm a bit wary of us including ships that weren't referred to as battlecruisers at the time, and aren't consistently classified as battlecruisers today, in a "List of Battlecruisers". The rationale you present is that fulfilled a similar role to ships that were classified as battlecruisers - that is not a particularly good argument either in terms of naval history (compare the specification of Kronstadt to that of Alaska, they're utterly different creatures!) or in terms of Wikipedia policy, which says we shouldn't make judgements based on our own interpretation of the facts... The Land (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the Kronshtadts nor the Stalingrads were termed as battlecruisers by the Soviets, so I don't see how you can hold a hard line on the Alaskas and still keep the two Russian designs in the topic. I think that you're getting hung up on the terminology of the owning navies while I'm not that concerned about it. I think that we can all agree on at least two of the three definitions of battlecruisers: The classic definition of high-speed, lightly armored capital ships valid through about 1920; the British use of the term from about 1920 for what other countries called fast battleships like Hood and the G3s; and the term for ships like the cruiser-killer designs that were more powerful and more heavily armored than any heavy cruiser, but inferior to battleships. Most importantly regarding this last point, some navies called the cruiser-killers battlecruisers, while others called their own comparable designs large cruisers. I think that we can disregard the official nomenclature and classify similar designs with a single name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not like we're going to be the only ones calling them battlecruisers, as historians have individually called all of the ships "battlecruisers" at different points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we can't use our own nomenclature. That's a bit too close to original research. The Land (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather different topic: Sturm, do you think Borodino has a chance of passing with more sources, or is she always gonna be at A-Class? Buggie111 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the FAC and sourcing wasn't the only problem, there were some issues with prose. But if anyone is planning to take it to FAC, give me a prod a couple of weeks beforehand and I will see if I can come up with some of the compelling prose that is currently lacking. :-) The Land (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the prose, and am rather sure I won't be able to fix by myself. I was much more concerned about sources. Buggie111 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was thinking that you meant the Borodino class BB article and was wondering why you'd mentioned it here. (pardon my confusion!) Borodino definitely needs some cleanup before I send it to FAC. That's why it's far down the list of my A-class articles to submit to FAC to complete this GT. I saw your sourcing additions and we'll have to slim them down somewhat as I see little need to double or triply cite a statement. We can work some of them in by replacing a few cites from McLaughlin. My British and Japanese articles are in generally better shape and will go to FAC sooner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Battleship awards and ribbons made into one composite image
I posted a question at Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61) regarding discrepancies between how we arrange the awards, ribbons and battlestars for the Iowa and how they are displayed on the ship itself. Once the issue is addressed and we know what the correct arrangement should be, would it be a good idea to assemble a single such image for each battleship? One example is here: File:USS Missouri (BB-63) Awards and Ribbons.PNG – Tomstar put that one together. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

USS Kentucky
Hey all, now that Kentucky has been demoted at FAR, we're going to need to beat the article into at least GA quality in time to save the FT. I should have some time to work on it over the next couple of weeks - anybody else available to lend a hand? Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it and Illinois both should be folded into the class article since neither was completed and the bulk of the info in the articles concerns possible conversion plans. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but I don't really see a point to articles on individual ships that were never completed if there's a class article available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first: lets see what the community thinks. I suggest starting a discussion on the class page about a possible merger of the two articles to the class page and then we can plan our next move based on whatever consensus emerges during the discussion. We can broadcast the discussion on MILHIST and SHIP channels to ensure that all interested parties get notified.
 * I proposed something like that at the FARC, didn't hear any replies. I'm for merging. Buggie111 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted a merge proposal on the Iowa class battleship talk page. Feel free to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race now open
The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Our first song
Good news: I've just discovered we have an article for the song Sink the Bismark, so in addition to games, movies, and TV shows we now have our first official song (insofar as I can tell, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For those of you interested in listening to the song here be a link: TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnny Horton was the man!XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck now open
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35)
I came across this at the Help Desk. I've emailed the Foundation and offered a possible OMT drive to bring the article up to TFA. As it's already at A-Class, it should be easy. Any takers? Buggie111 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, the article is heavily based on DANFS, including some very close paraphrasing (and probably direct copies, I only looked at a couple of places). I'd recommend getting rid of all or at least most of the references to DANFS altogether and cite the material from more academic sources. The Navweaps citations will also need to go, and the citation format needs to be completely redone. There are accuracy issues as well; the line "With the German Fleet increasingly tied to its bases in the estuaries of the Jade and the Ems rivers, the American and British ships settled into a routine schedule of operations with little-to-no hint of combat operations" for instance, implies the reason there was no combat was because the Germans wouldn't venture out of their bases. In reality, the British had largely abandoned the central and southern North Sea after Jutland as well. There may be more, this is just what caught my eye. Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, this one takes me back... Both MBK004 and I worked on this article back in the day. I hate to admit it, but the current Texas is likely going to need a top to bottom rebuild since it is as Parsecboy surmised 90% a cut/paste job from DANFS; acceptable back in the day but not today, I am afraid. On an unrelated note, my whole damn family is now jobless, and unless things take a turn for the better real fast our funding is gong to run out in 2-3 months time. If that happens I doubt I will be on here at all for a very long time. Assuming that God actually listens to our family's prayer(s) this time instead of putting us aside as he always seems to do then maybe we could get a lucky break, but until then I doubt very much that I will be able to help here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Capitan Prat
Hey all, I stumbled across this ship while reading through Ed's South American dreadnought race article, which is at FAC. It's a 7,000-ton ship armed with four 9.4" guns, and is classed as a battleship by Conway's 1860-1905 (which normally classifies ships we don't include as coastal battleships, turret ships, etc.). Is there a reason we haven't included it? Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Launched in 1890, it's of the proper period to be classified as a pre-dreadnought, but it's far smaller than even the second-class battleships of the period and 9.4-inch guns are nothing to write home about in terms of armament. Compare it to the British Centurion class battleships of the same time which were 3,000 tons bigger and with 10-inch guns. I'd call it a coast defense ship, but YMMV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She's a high-freeboard design, which I think moves her out of the coastal defense ship realm. FWIW, Illustrated Directory of Warships of the World classifies her as a battleship too. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of the Austrian battleships had only 9.4" guns - it was only the last class of "semi-dreads" that moved up from them, so I wouldn't exclude it on grounds of gun size...I'd say that while she's on the small side she squeaks in as a pre-dreadnaught battleship. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That reminds me - ten of the German pre-dreadnoughts were equipped with 9.4" guns (the Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach classes), so again, there's an argument for including her, or at least not excluding her on those grounds. On somewhat of a side note, in trawling through google books to build the article, I came across a few references to her being a second class battleship (though most were simply "battleship"), which we have several of already, including Texas and Maine and several British ships (ex: Centurion class), to name a few. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary now open
The featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a mighty fine article. I'd still like to touch up the part where it says range information was input to the Argo clock within the Dreyer table.  Generally, while the Argo clock was a component of the Dreyer table, the ranges were plotted onto the table's range plot and analysis of that plot would, in turn, be used to choose the clock's settings.  Similar pages are more correct in this regard, or simply adhere to a tighter content scope. DulcetTone (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be more detail than is appropriate for a ship article. We do need more and better articles on all the British fire-control equipment, which is probably the best place for that sort of stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

List of battleships of Greece
Hey all - the ACR for this list has been open for about a month now, and one a couple comments have been made. Can a few of you take a look at the list and see if it meets the A-class standards? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note for public consumption: apparently four items do not a list make, so don't bother wasting your time on lists with fewer than some random, arbitrary number of items that no one will identify. Cheers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard FAC
The FAC for HMS Vanguard is now open at Featured article candidates/HMS Vanguard (23)/archive1. Any comments would be welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note
Hey all - I just requested the four volumes from 1984 of Warship International from the library to work on Normandie class battleship. If there's anything else from those volumes anyone needs, I can scan it for you. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless the articles on torpedo boats of the South and the Swedish Navy in No. 4 are more interesting than I suspect; I'll be OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, no luck on those. On another note, I just requested the 1985 volumes for the article on the Lyon-class battleship - these volumes look to have several articles on various battleships. If anyone wants any of them, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Turns out the bound volume at OSU is missing the 1st volume from 1985. Does anyone else have access to it? Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a link to a deleted RapidShare file – you might be able to find it floating around the internet somewhere. Otherwise Amazon has it for only a few dollars... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have it; 1985 wasn't a great year for my interests, although the underwater protection articles by Jurens might be interesting as well as the Marceau article. If you can read or translate French, I can scan sections from Cens ans de cuiraissés français on the Normandie and Lyon classes for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What use could we make of the UK's National Maritime Museum archives?
I've been talking to the National Maritime Museum in London (as some of you might know). They are interested to know what use we could make of the material in their archive catalogue. If we could get a bunch of Wikipedians to turn up, request bits of archival material, probably scan/digitise it (copyright allowing, but most of it is quite old), as well as look up the secondary sources in their library and go and look at / take photos of stuff in their collections - what would people be interested in getting hold of and what use would we make of it? NB I'm hoping for a more specific answer than "we want ALL OF IT and we'll use it EVERYWHERE" ;-) - I am looking for some concrete examples from you guys to go back to them with. :D The Land (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, all of it. ;-) But for real – ship plans and/or photos would be great, as Brassey's isn't very detailed and the IWM doesn't give out high-quality images. If you've got better ideas, these should probably be not as important (we do have substitutes, just not great substitutes). However, if you want really specific... I'd absolutely love the plans for Riachuelo, which should be in the NMM files as Design 781. Otherwise, I'd also love any launch/trials/etc. photos of Minas Geraes, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Almirante Latorre, or HMS Eagle (ex-Almirante Cochrane) to better illustrate articles like South American dreadnought race. Currently we only have a terrible launch photo of MG and a couple of the same underway to document any of these ships' time in the UK; Latorre is by far the worst off (just look at the lead image). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you try putting a few searches into the search box on their archive cataloge (top-left) and seeing what takes your interest that comes out? The Land (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I found ship plans for the Minas Geraes class (DEY/10), Almirante Latorre class (DEY/9), and Rio (DEY/10; DEY/11 has a Design 640 that Topliss connects to an early design of Rio). I can't find Riachuelo, but I have an article (Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts") that references a Design Particulars book for that design at the NMM. The plan was printed in the magazine, but 8.5x11" doesn't show much of the detail the plan clearly has. Unfortunately no images were listed under any of the search terms I could think of... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Here are a couple of things that piqued my interest: PHI/349/1-3, SPB/41/2, SPB/41/1. THU/2/2 might have some interesting information in it. Sturm might want to see DEY/100; Ed, DEY/90 is a "Pocket book of plans of Brazilian Battleship MINAS GERAES" and DEY/10 has information on Rio de Janiero and Minas Geraes. COW/18 is a photo album with photos of many early British and a few Italian battleships. There are numerous other records that might be useful to people here - I just found these by typing in "battleship" in the search box. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec! I just found photos of Agincourt/Rio at MSS/75/110.0. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PCY/14/2 is a photo of SMS Seydlitz we might not already have uploaded. And if we do, we can probably get a much higher resolution scan. DEN/9/1 has aerial reconnaissance photos of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in Brest - we have one photo but there might be better images. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)