User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 28

Hi. I just did my thing on these two. I'm not quite sure if the footnote text for Die Wehrmachtberichte is right, or quite sure of the 'band' part. Thinking the band is the time-frame in the war. The footnote text can, of course, be fiddled with. On Tirpitz, there are two sources that need full cite details; "Blair" and "Rohwer", and on Bismarck, I added a definition of Gardiner & Chesneau, but am unsure if there are other editions of that. I'll be visiting the Bismarck class article, soon.

I've also made a pretty good dent in the Kaiser's battleships and battlecruisers ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I took a good bet. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My power was knocked out by that freak storm two nights ago, so my presence on wiki will be very limited until its restored. The power company has said it could be as long as a week. Anywho, what I can tell you now is that it's Clay Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War, the first volume. And that's the right Rohwer :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix the Blair ref up, then. I stopped back with a different concern. In German battleship Gneisenau, the note that's now 'a' regarding the ship's decommissioning seems to be in the wrong spot. The ZT p57 may be right, but the ship was not decommissioned after storm damage in '41, it was after the bomb damage in '42. So either the {efn} needs to be moved, or split up, or something.

Good luck with the electrics. Sounds like a lot of damaged lines. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Gneisenau mistake occurred here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My power's back on, so I'm back in business. As far as I know, the storm knocked out power for something like 2 million people across several states in the eastern US.

I'm not sure what the Gneisenau note is about, and since I'm out here in DC, I don't have access to most of my library, so I can't check it. I just removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I went and read about it and learned the word Derecho. Tornadoes are up by more than a factor of ten since the 90s. I think someone left the stove on high. Anysways, welcome back.

I'm on the Scharnhorst class battleship, and may move on to the Hipper class, next. But also thinking I'll like to read about the earlier Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Lotta boats. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out we have an article on it - I wasn't aware that people had been killed by the storm.

Yeah, you're working through five years of my work :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is on the main page; in the news. It's all good work; be satisfied about it. Me seeing huge number of cruisers, too. If you want to focus me on any particular article, just let me know. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I am pretty satisfied with the finished projects. Yeah, there are all of the armored, protected, heavy, and about half of the light cruisers done :) The articles I'm mostly concerned with are those that are going to ACR/FAC in the short term, which are mostly the battleship articles, and you've got those mostly done. FWIW, SMS Nassau needs to be updated (I might get around to it soonish) with the Staff book that was published after I wrote the article. So you don't need to rush off to do that one until I've reworked it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already done that one. I've been over all the German dreadnoughts (but not the pre dreadnoughts). Did all the battlecruisers, too. There are some of the other cruisers done, but that seems a vast area. And I just did HMS Jupiter (1895) as I saw that it's at GA. I figure the ones that are already GA are likely up for FA in the near term. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So you did - I guess I missed it on the watchlist. Well, the dreadnoughts are the priority for the higher assessment levels, since my main goal there is to get this to 50% (I'm at about 29% right now). And given that a FAC runs at least a month, I'll need another year's worth of FACs after the current one (hopefully - the article failed the last run) passes to hit the magic number. And that's assuming I can run a FAC every month (I won't). So I guess what I'm saying is, for the time being, go where the wind takes you :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been through everything from Nassau class battleship and beyond with just H class battleship proposals needing a bit more tweaking. The pre-dreadnoughts I've only made minor tweaks to, such as dashes. I'll work on the earlier ones; they're interesting things were evolving so fast then. You do know that I'm all for kicking that FAC process into a higher gear, right? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Only a handful of the pre-dreadnoughts will have to go to ACR/FAC for the project, and those will probably be SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm and a couple of the Deutschlands that are already through A-class. As for FAC, there's not much I can do to speed things up, and I don't know that anyone else has done enough work on the articles to allow for co-noms (at least without appearing like I'm gaming the system). Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been working from newer to older for the most part, so the Deutschlands would be next. I'll have a look at KFW

The FAC rulz are arbitrary and impeding progress, so I'm for radical change. There's no legit reason for you to not nom a half dozen that you believe ready. I'll co-nom any I've reworked with you. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by with your advice and gifts of a very useful nature. I’ve already been able to put some of it to work. BTW, I do have a copy of United States Destroyer Operations (1953) by Roscoe in my library. Should you have need of it, just give me the word. My Mahan project got off to a shaky start, but thanks to you and others I’m navigating the choppy waters of Wikipedia a little bit better. Aesop said it best: “No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.” Much obliged! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you want to get Sturm, you, me, and possibly Land/Jonyungk together to collaborate on battlecruiser for the Core Contest in August? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. I'll be back in Columbus around the first of the month, so I'll have access to my library again. I'll also have a couple of weeks off before the start of the fall semester, so I should have plenty of time on my hands :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, it will be fun to whack that article into shape. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for blocking IP address:75.72.241.244. Mr. Slinks (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - let me know if s/he starts back up again once the block expires. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will let you know if I can. Mr. Slinks (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey if you love brownies then here are some brownies for you. Thank you so much. :) Mr. Slinks (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details". Thank you. --Zh.Mike (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm horrible with images, as you know, but all the white space to the left of the top navbox doesn't look right to me ... is there a fix for that? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is. If the navbox had sat beneath the lead image normally (for instance, like here), then the text would wrap properly, but since it was moving up next to the image, we had to use the stacking template, which apparently sets a single width for the column. If we could figure out what was causing the navbox to move up, we could get rid of the stacking template. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I've figured it out - User:Frietjes converted the German navbox into a sidebar template, which is what fixed the whitespace issues. Since my template skills are fairly primitive, I have humbly asked for their help with it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't fix the general problem, but I've unstacked, changed the paragraph break, and moved the navbox down to about the right spot (it works for a variety of magnifications). That at least gets rid of the whitespace, which was going to be a problem, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Frietjes has gotten busy in real life. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and made a couple of minor comments at Talk:French battleship Danton/GA1. Very nice article! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class medal with swords for your excellent work on List of battleships of Greece, SMS König Albert and List of protected cruisers of Germany promoted between March 2012 and June 2012. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Greece Barnstar of National Merit
		For superb contributions on Greek warships, especially in view of how neglected the topic is even in Greek literature. Εύγε! Constantine ✍ 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you would be interested in bringing the Lütjens' article up to speed? I know you seem to be interested more in ships than with people but since the Bismarck article is coming close to finished I felt that Lütjens deserved a well written article as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I've done a few biographies so far, so it won't be entirely new to me. Since I'm doing research in Washington DC, I don't have access to most of my books, so I won't be able to give you much help until I'm back home - that should be in early August. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is fine, I am going on a tour of Europe soon so I am out as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent - where are you going to visit? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey,

Your nomination has passed! See Talk:Lyon class battleship/GA1.

Best wishes,

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am sorry if I miscounted, but I suspect you are not taking into account my introduction of "(died)" as a compromise solution? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize, I indeed wasn't aware of that; in fact I thought I'd seen it explained precisely the other way, to allow for compromises. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I've made some review comments on your nomination at Talk:French battleship Brennus/GA1, mostly about unclear wording.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Right back at you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got detailed year-by-year activities for these ships and was planning to work them after I finish with the Dantons, which probably won't be until early next week at best. Shall we collaborate to get them ready for GA, or would you prefer to work on them yourself? I can scan what I have, it's in English, and email it if you'd prefer not to wait or to work alone. I have nothing special on any of the Republique and Patrie classes if you'd prefer to work your magic on them instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good - I'm fairly limited on details, as you can see from Bretagne. We can work together on them - I'm in no hurry. Perhaps I'll see what I can do with the Republiques and Patries until then. Parsecboy (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've built a topic box for the French BBs in the usual place and it would be great if you could update it as your articles get assessed. Same with the British pre-dreadnoughts as I'm not sure what's passed GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind as I work on the articles. We're looking to be in pretty good shape so far. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we've knocked out about a third of the articles in these last couple of weeks. I think Béarn is going to be the biggest problem as I've got nothing on her peacetime activities and the one book published on her isn't even in OCLC, IIRC. The WWII-era ships will be easy as I think we've both got the Jordan & Dumas book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with the WWII ships is cleaning them up - sometimes I'd rather have a basically clean slate stub to work on than something I've got to completely rewrite. I had looked at Bearn, but I haven't got much on her either. What's the name of the book on her? Hopefully we'll be able to squeak her through GA. I started French battleship République last night, and am finishing her up now - she didn't turn out too bad, considering the lack of good sources. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel about retaining existing text; sometimes it seems more trouble than it's worth. Sometimes it is, just take a look at Lord Nelson-class battleship and you'll appreciate why I've left it alone despite having finished off the two individual ship articles quite a while ago. I'm not sure if I'm gonna flush the existing text, which does kind of make me feel bad because somebody spent some serious time on it, or just start over with my preferred format for class articles. Probably the latter, although I may retain some of the existing text if it's reasonably well sourced.

I'll have to look again for that French-language book on Béarn; I last checked on it about a year ago. I'm fairly certain that it's for sale through French retailers. Maybe you can hit up some of those Wiki Foundation types while you're there for a micro-grant to purchase foreign-language material that's not available through any US library. I have a little list that would cost me $3-400 of French-language books that I'd like to use for articles, but most of those are airplane books. I'd even be willing to donate them to a library after I was done with them, if that would make them happy.

I added my material to Bretagne since you'd already nominated it for GA, so check it over for any mistakes/typos. I'll take a co-nom for the GAN if that's OK by you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had wondered why you hadn't finished up that class article back when you did the ship articles. Sometimes it's better to use a slash and burn approach, which is what I did with the old version of Dunkerque - not much survived the rewrite, though it was done mostly progressively - as I added sources, I rewrote the text. I did talk with the editor who had written the original text (a Frenchman - he might actually be able to lend us a hand with Bearn - I'll drop him a line)

Ed would be the better option to try to get a grant, since he's actually at the conference. I just happened to be in town and went to the milhist dinner last night.

As for Bretagne, your additions look good, and by all means join the GAN. Ed and I were talking last night about the feasibility of actually reaching the 50% mark for FAs - I shouldn't have a problem getting the German topic to 50%, but I don't think I'll be able to squeeze out much more than that. And I don't think we have much of a prospect for the smaller navies, and even with the American and British fleets, there are more than enough ships that didn't see action in either world war to present a problem. I guess we'll just have to see how things progress. At least the battlecruiser topic will be fine on numbers (which reminds me - Ed told me Cam would be back in August, so he should be able to get some of the Kongos through FAC soon). Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that we'll be able to get our 50%, especially since redefining pre-dreadnought to mean laid down 1889 or later will trim a fair number of ships that we can't document well enough to get past GAN. I did a quick check and we lose Maine and Texas from the US, a few from the minors like Pelayo and Capitaine Pratt, about 10 from the Italians and 6-7 from the Russians. But it does mean that we'll need to get virtually every ship to FAC that we can document pretty well even if not perfectly. That should cover pretty much every ship that actually fought in WW2, plus those WWI-era ships which have published ship histories. Without Buggie111 or another Russian speaker, I'm not sure that we're going to be able to get any of the Gangut/Marat class or any of those ships that fought in the Russo-Japanese War through FAC. The unbuilt/uncompleted classes like Borodino & Kronstadt shouldn't be a problem, but getting coverage for the peacetime years will be very difficult. I think that we have enough material on British pre-dreadnoughts to take them to FAC as there's just enough material in Burt to cover their peacetime activities and their wartime activities are pretty well documented. As I think we've discussed, most of the dreadnoughts are going to be a real problem as we don't have enough material on their wartime activities for FAC. If I dig in and do bunch of translating, I can take all of the Bretagne/Courbets to FAC; my French is crappy enough that I don't want to do it for anything less, but the material is there.

I'm glad to hear that Cam will be back in action as getting all those Japanese BCs/BBs through FAC will help immensely, especially if we push them through with a lot of co-nominating. Same for the other A-class articles. Dan and I had already talked about doing that for more of the British BC articles. But this also means that we're going to need to spend more time reviewing, especially at ACR, FLC, and FAC, so we don't overload the systems.

I should be able to knock out a lot of material between semesters as I'm not travelling anywhere like I was last time and I'm planning on finishing off Saratoga and starting the QE-class BBs while checking through more of my British BCs to ready them for ACRs. I've got some material on some of the Japanese predreadnoughts that I plan to use to get them through GAN, even though they'll never go any higher. After that, I don't know how much time I'll have as I've got to start the whole grad school application process. I should be able to keep up with any ACRs and FACs as those really aren't all that time consuming unless massive revisions are needed, but I'm not too sure about simple expansion as that's usually pretty time consuming unless they're cookie cutter like the Dantons have been.

I did a preliminary look at the BC article and it's actually in pretty good shape if we can delete all the crap on the activities of the pocket battleships and Gneisenau & Scharnhorst. We need to minimize use of Breyer as he's awfully out of date on many issues. I was thinking that we should have a section dedicated to nomenclature, but it's actually pretty well integrated into the text. We do need to sweat a lot of the petty stuff like conversions and links, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we'll have a problem getting the US ships from the Standards onward to FAC (apart from cleaning up the messes, like Tennessee, of course), and I imagine the QEs and most of the second KGV class should be alright. The WWI-era ships will be a little tougher, since we don't have a source as detailed as the Staff books are for the Germans. Do you know what happened with Buggie? And wasn't East of Borschov working on some of the articles? And now I see that he's retired. That's unfortunate.

Yeah, getting the Japanese ships done will be a great help, and we should be able to get all of the ships that saw action in WWII to FA, and probably some of the veterans of Tsushima as well.

Where are you thinking of applying for grad school? And when will you be done with undergrad - this spring? Ed is going to be finished after the Fall semester.

Yeah, Ed and I talked about the BC article last night, and agreed that a good chunk of it is usable, and also on removing the Deutschlands and Scharnhorsts, though we're going to face resistance on that. I think the argument we need to make is internal consistency - for example, the Scharnhorsts are treated as battleships in their articles, so they should be in other articles so as to not confuse the reader. And the reason for making that decision at the class article is because the preponderance of sources call them battleships, not battlecruisers. I should have some time (and access to my library) once I'm back in Columbus in a couple of weeks, but I'm planning on being pretty busy once the semester starts back up, so I don't know how active I'll be. Oh, and check your email. Parsecboy (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I graduate in the spring and am mostly thinking about applying locally. One of my profs is pushing me to think outside the state like UCLA, but maybe that's because he's thinking about a research-type degree when I'm more interested in counseling. I'm not sure what's up with Buggie, but I think that he doesn't have much time to edit now so we'll have to do the best we can with the Russian ships with English-language sources. A real pity as I have a bunch of Russian-language books on those ships that I'd dearly love to be able to read to extract the operational histories. To offset this sort of stuff, I'm already planning to taking virtually all of my British BCs to FAC, which has the added advantage that doing so shouldn't be too time consuming while I'm doing the grad-school preparation grind. I'm especially looking forward to the GRE!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you looking to do with grad school? I don't know how active people are at WP:RUSSIA - it doesn't look like much - but you might be able to find someone there you can work with on translating the text. Yeah, the BCs are one area where we can pick up a lot of extra FAs to help counter-balance the rest, since basically all of them can be taken to FA eventually, apart from some of the unfinished designs. Have fun with the GRE, it was great. Actually, it wasn't all that bad, and I oddly did better on the math section than I was expecting. Honestly, I think I just got very lucky on my guesses. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Clinical psychology, although I have more of an interest in PTSD counseling than research. I'm hoping that I can get the Army to pay for it, if they'll give me a massive waiver for age. If they take me, I'd be a good candidate to be the oldest 2nd louie in the Army! Problem with going to WP:Russia is that nobody is likely to understand nautical terminology, which would be problematic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I guess I just assumed you were in your 20s since all I really knew was that you were in college. I don't know how much luck you'll have - from what I understand, the Army is trying to downsize and get rid of as many surplus people as possible, but then again, it does depend on which jobs are and aren't needed.

Yeah, that's a good point, but I suppose it can't hurt to try - you never know what you might find. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his fine efforts in the June 2012 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 68 points from 10 articles. Congratulations! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have passed it at this time. Awesome job and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination of French battleship Patrie has also passed. Good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing those articles! Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for your review of James Bryant Conant! If you have the time, could you take a look at Vannevar Bush? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

...on Operation Majestic Titan. I was led here by my discovery of the sheer neglect that the battleship-related articles on Wikipedia have taken; I would really like to help out. Pointers like: relevant policies and guidelines, where to begin (because I have no idea), specifically article that I might be able to create myself, even though I'm sure all the good articles have already been created. I'm already apart of the WikiProject Military history and have contributed quite a bit but most of the article I've created or expanded document military units or biographies of military persons, so I have little to no experience with battleship-related articles, but I'm sure I could learn, Anyway, cheers. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to help out, and welcome aboard. It's good to have another editor interested in the topic. Broadly speaking, the best way to learn how to write an article on any type of warship is to simply look at ones that have already been done (there's a list of ship FAs here - most of them have been written by OMT members). As far as guidelines and the like, there is the ships MOS and the naming conventions, but a lot of what we do is just common practice that evolved over the past several year.

The general format we use is a relatively short section on the ship's technical characteristics, if it's a member of a class, or a more in depth description if it's a unique ship. There's no hard and fast rule on what should be included there, and a lot of it depends on each case. The rest of the article should be the service history of the ship: when and were it was built, anything it was used for, wars it fought in, and what happened to it. Again, looking at some completed articles will give you a good idea of what's idea.

As for the articles, there are still quite a lot of good articles left. For instance, most of the American ships that were built from the 1910s onward still need a lot of work, and since most of them saw at least some action during World War II, there should be a good deal of stuff written about them. And they're also in DANFS (which is available online), which should help fill in the gaps. There are also a lot of British ships left to do, like the World War I ships. Most of the World War II French and Italian ships are still in need of work as well.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help with, of if you'd like to work on an article with me. Sturmvogel is the only other OMT member who's actively working on the project at the moment, and I'm sure he'd be happy to lend a hand as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You've probably already noticed the list of ships that fall under OMT; if an article has an editor's name listed next to it, either that editor considers himself responsible for maintaining that article or plans to work on it in the near future. If you're interested in improving the article, I'd suggest contacting that editor as a courtesy before making any changes. Parsecboy and I have large libraries devoted to OMT ships and we're happy to share what we have as well as offer advice should you feel in need of any. As he said above, read through a number of our ship articles to get a feel for how we do things, but don't just read the FA-quality articles as they can be pretty daunting in the amount of info covered. Read some of the GA-class articles as well as they're far smaller and easier to grasp, but still cover the essentials.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started a rewrite of the Italian battleship Benedetto Brin article in my userspace at User:Ceradon/Benedetto but most of the books on military history that I have are giving biographical information on miliatry commanders, so I was wondering if I could get some quotes from some of the books you guys have: "The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships: A Technical Directory of Capital Ships from 1860 to the Present Day" looks pretty promising but whatever you guys deem relevant would be nice. If you could quote it on wiki would also be very much appreciated. Thank you and cheers, Ceradon ^talk_contribs 22:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that I'd do is to copy the existing stub into your sandbox so you can start improving it there so you don't duplicate existing work. That said, you've chosen a difficult topic as the Italian ships, especially the pre-dreadnoughts, are not well documented in English. That's compounded by the fact that the general ship encyclopedias like Gibbons trade span of coverage for detail, so there's really not much there. I can send you a photograph of that page, and from Conway's, if you'll send me your email off-list, but I'm not sure how much it will help. I'd suggest that you make friends with your local librarians and start ordering books through inter-library loan unless you're actually willing to spend some money for references. The other thing to do is to trawl through Google Books and Scholar and see what you can find from them as well as from online newspaper archives, etc. That is useful if the ship has participated in some sort of naval review or disaster relief, or some such. I have the Fraccoli as well, but it's really pretty useless except for specifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the (not terribly useful) Italian Navy page on Benedetto Brin. There are also copies of various Brassey's Naval annuals on the Internet Archive available for on-line reading and/or download, which probably have some coverage of Brin, while [1] has some info on Brin's use in the 1911–12 Italo-Turkish war.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nigel made a good suggestion with Brassey's and other contemporary periodicals - you can frequently get at least unit assignments and training periods, along with any accidents the ship may have been involved in. See for instance French battleship Brennus how these kinds of sources can be used to hammer out a half-way decent article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You recently rated the article Sudarshan laser-guided bomb as B-class. Thanks for that! Can you suggest what else could i do to improve it, and its rating? I have read the criteria for good articles, but since i am inexperienced in this, i very much need guidance. And i figured, who better than someone who has rated it. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, munitions aren't really my area of expertise, so I can't give you much advice. The problem you have with this article is that it's a new weapon, and so you don't have a history of its use to write about. You're also not going to find much in books yet, and those would generally have the kind of background information you don't get in news articles and the like. You might consider filing a peer review to get more suggestions from other editors.

I do have one question: the article states that the LGB uses a designator to paint the target. My understanding of LGBs was that something else has to paint the target for the bomb, either the aircraft that dropped it, or a second observer, either in the air or on the ground. Is that the case here? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The LGB uses a laser designator to 'paint' or mark a target. This does not mean that the designator is on-board, just that the kit needs one. But i understand the confusion due to the language and have made suitable corrections. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! It's sorta the crown jewel for German battleships :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the USS Mahan (DD-364) article and wonder what my chances are of having you critique it before I add the inline citations. In any event, thank you.Pendright (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my request, with thanks. Pendright (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems I was a bit hasty (addled) in my withdrawal request. So, if you are amenable, please dive in. I’ll take any additional help I can get. Please accept my apology, as well. Pendright (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I've been pretty busy the past couple of days, finishing up in DC and then traveling back home. I'd be happy to look at the article and see what suggestions I can make. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

I apologize for undoing what I asked you to do. Thanks for reverting it. Questions: grammatically, if one hyphenates Mahan-class destroyers, why does one not hyphen Mahan class and Farragut class? And can you give me a short tutorial on the sclass template vs. the piped links. Thanks too for your willingness to help. Pendright (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem at all :) The reason you hyphenate Mahan-class destroyer is because the "destroyer" bit is the noun, while "Mahan-class" is the adjective, and compound adjectives should be hyphenated. "Mahan class" by itself is different, because in that case, the "class" is the noun.

Basically, the template is faster and easier, especially once you get the hang of it - compare {{sclass|Mahan|destroyer|1}} with [[Mahan class destroyer|''Mahan''-class destroyer]]. You can use it to link to the class and the ship type if you want, like Mahan-class destroyer, or you can just link part of the article name. For example, you could use it like this: "The III Battle Squadron consisted of nine König and Kaiser-class battleships..." (the template page lists all of the parameters you can use, see Template:sclass)

A similar series of templates are the {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, and {{SMS}} types, which allows you to link to specific ships with various options. Like the sclass template, it automatically italicizes the ship name, and you can use it to either show or hide the prefix and disambiguators. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged, Nate. I’m 61 years older than you are and obviously still learning. I have a vested interest in the history of Mahan, because I was a crew-member from April 21, 1944, until December 7, 1944. My fondest hope is to see this thing through, despite my inability to easily navigate the waters of Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks again for being so generous with your time. Pendright (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it took me a while before I had a good grasp of everything here, and I've been here for 6 years now. Wikipedia can be a difficult place for new editors, especially when you want to write an article basically from scratch. I didn't try writing a high-quality article until I'd been here for close to a year.

Thanks for your service aboard Mahan, I can only imagine what going through the attack on 7 December was like. I'll be happy to help you in any way that I can with the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your service, especially your tour in Iraq. I hope your back is not a lingering problem for you. Aside from a swim in unfriendly waters, I escaped without a scratch. I do grapple with Wikipedia’s boundless procedures, but with each problem comes a bit more knowledge. I have learned one thing though: tackling DANFS stuff is not a good place to begin. Again, thanks for your willingness to help. And thanks too for your offer of additional help, which I fully plan to take advantage of. New rules: it’s okay to end a sentence with a preposition.

Pendright (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My back is mostly ok these days, it doesn't cause trouble. That's pretty lucky to have survived the sinking without a scratch. And yeah, there are quite a lot of rules and procedures here, which can make it tough for people who aren't familiar with them. DANFS is ok for details in most cases (though they can be sparse in others), but trying to improve the direct copies here can be a pain - I had to rewrite USS Wichita basically from scratch. You know, there's a school of thought in grammar that since languages constantly evolve, grammar rules should follow common usage, instead of trying to stick to 19th century standards. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hochseeflotte 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at your question soon. MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's back. He seems to have taken a swing at the Palins before revisiting his usual haunt. Summer sure went by fast. Manxruler (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how some people will grab onto something and just not let go for long periods of time. I've semi-protected the page for 3 months, so we'll at least have that long before he returns. Hopefully he'll give it up and move on with his life. But I'm not holding my breath. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I. A three-month break is nice. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is amazing. In this case not as amazing as the curious case of Cat Creek, Montana though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite the sock farm, and heaps of ducks. Using a 1911 book to promote the concept of wild lions in North America, that's something else. Manxruler (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And as far as I can tell, the book doesn't exist! I must say, however, I can beat you on longevity: Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs) has been harassing me via dynamic IPs ever since he was indeffed back in June 2007. 24.18.140.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the latest iteration, from this past June, which makes it 5 years running now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have assessed your articles on the French battleship Démocratie and French battleship Vérité as you requested on the Assessment Requests page. I made one minor change to the Démocratie article, but both were easy B Class articles. I notice that you are requesting GA reviews on the talk page of both articles. I, as a rank amateur in editing articles above B class, feel out of my league in assessing for GA so I will leave that to others. I like the lay out of both articles and I thought that the subject was covered well in very readable writing style. If someone else would start the process on GA, I probably would be able to jump in and contribute a support opinion on both articles. Keep up the good work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuprum - I'm not sure why I didn't clarify that Fulminant was a target ship (probably said it in my head and thought I did type it ;) As for GA, not a problem at all, we all start reviewing the higher classes only once we're comfortable with the standards. If you like, you can watch the redlinks (like here) for the GA subpages so you can see them when someone creates them (that's why I usually do). That way, you can see how they do the review and what things they look at. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited French battleship Provence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centerline (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) 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thanks for for stepping up to the plate in my absence to get the GAC concerns for Kentucky addressed. I'm sorry this always seems to happen (if people didn't know me so well I'm certain they would think I script these things) but its nice to know that others have your back. I think it should be able to take it from here, I have a few things I can add to the article, but its gonna take a little time for me to get back into the groove of things since the standards for our quality article content have reached what seems to me to be a sky high level. At any rate, as a token of my appreciation, I hereby award you this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! I'm glad to lend a hand when you needed it. Best of luck getting it back to FA - I think it's well on its way. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have finished my review of the "SMS Kaiser (1911)" article you nominated for FAC. You made a good work; I pointed some minor things that should be fixed. May I ask you for a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive6, which I nominated? Please point any mistake or detail to fix you find in it. Cambalachero (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to stop by the May Revolution FAC either this afternoon or tomorrow. Thanks for reviewing mine. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.. you seem to be rather will informed on anything to do with warships. Can you tell me what the purpose of the diagonal items on the sides of the hull of the ships built in this era are? Example: File:SMS Kaiser.png. (Hohum ^@) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hohum. Those are the booms for the anti-torpedo nets. They're normally kept retracted, because they severely limit the speed at which the ship can steam. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! (The Torpedo net article could do with some work.) (Hohum ^@) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the July 2012 Military history WikiProject Contest with 118 points from 15 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nate, it would be great to have you back on the team if you can spare the time this year. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to help, but I really don't know if I'll have the time to do much work (as a coord or even as an editor). I'm making the push to be ready for general exams by the end of the (academic) year, so the majority of my spare time will be spent preparing for that. And it doesn't help that I'm starting Chinese this semester. Getting Kaiser through FAC may well be the last major effort I'll make here for a while. Thanks though. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exciting stuff, keep me posted :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do - hopefully by next summer, I'll be ABD :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear they don't drag it out. The good schools don't have to. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there were actually a number of reforms put in place with the transition to semesters (we'd been on quarters at OSU) that sped the process up. I'm still being aggressive in pushing for the end of my second year, but as far as I'm aware, that's the long term goal once all the kinks are worked out. I guess I'm a guinea pig, but if it results in me having at least 3 years of funding to write my dissertation, I'll be happy playing that part. Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the exams in April? - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's basically whenever I schedule them - depending on how things shake out, either April or May. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tirpitz early.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy

I find your mail about French aircraft carrier Bearn but even in the French-language books (Bertrand, Michel (1982) (in fr). La Marine française au combat 1939-1945 Tome 1 Des combats de l'Atlantique aux F.N.F.L. Paris: Charles Lavauzelle. ISBN 2-7025-0002-1, or Masson, Philippe (in fr). La marine française et la guerre 1939-1945. Paris: Éditions Taillandier. ISBN 2-235-020410) , or in the English-language (but French author) books (Le Masson, Henri (1969). Navies of the Second World War The French Navy Volume 1. London: Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd ISBN 0356-02384-2 or Labayle-Couhat, Jean (1974). French Warships of World War I. London: Ian Allan Ltd. ISBN 0-7110-0445-5), in my library, I found nothing that you did not use in your article. This ship was obviously a failure, and the remembrance of which weighed yet, when the idea of converting Jean Bart in an aircrft carrier was discussed in 1945, and this explains perhaps why there is so few existing litterature about her.

Let me do some observations on your article:

• Béarn was not « a unique aircraft carrier which served with the Marine nationale (French Navy) in World War II and beyond», but the unique aircraft carrier in service in the French Navy, during World War II, (as the aircraft carrier HMS Biter was transferred to the French Navy immediatly postwar, as Dixmude).

• You wrote «These experiments convinced the Navy to convert Béarn as a semi-experimental ship, which should be replaced by purpose-built aircraft carriers as soon as was practicable». I dont completely agree with this assertion. When the decision intervened to convert Bearn, in 1921, before the Washington conference, after the 1920 Commandant Teste's experiments, most of the aircraft carriers in service or then building, except HMS Hermes and IJN Hosho, were conversions from old battleships or mercantile, as HMS Eagle, HMS Argus, USS Langley, and the interest of high speed for the aircraft carriers was not evident. I think that Bearn was not an transitionnal concept in the French Navy, but was based on this first generation of aircraft carriers with a moderate speed. The building of Joffre-class aircraft carriers intervened much later, principally because the French Admiralty did not believe in the possibility of carrying fatal air-born blows to battleships, even if some of the most high naval officers had the experience of naval airforce, as Admiral de Laborde or Admiral Esteva. Moreover,the organisation of the French naval airforces, between the Navy and the Airforce, in the late 1920s, did not facilitate the conception of aircraft corresponding to the needs of the Naval Airforce. So, I propose «These experiments convinced the Navy, in 1921, to convert Béarn as an aircraft carrier, which corresponded roughly to the the aircraft carriers of first generation (as HMS Hermes, HMS Argus or USS Langley), converted before the Washington Treaty, but she had a the slowest speed».

• I am very dubious of the assignation of such a slow warship as Bearn, in the Force de Raid. I did not find in Jordan and Dumas's book, or in Dumas's book on Dunkerque and Strasbourg, that she participated to some Force de Raid actions, not even to the hunting groups formed with some ships of the Force de Raid with some heavy cruisers, to give chase to the Graf Spee (Jordan & Dumas, (2009). French battleships 1922-1956, p.62-70).

• You have not indicated which were the aircraft of the Bearn's flotillas, Chance Vought 156 and Loire-Nieuport 401 dive bombers, and Bloch 151 fighters. As Bearn was considered unable to be engaged in first line actions, her air squadrons were landed at the beginning of the May 1940 German attack, and sent in the North of France, where half of them were destroyed by German bombings on their airfields, in May 1940, but most of the remainder sustained heavy losses during gallant but hopeless attacks, near Saint-Quentin, in trying to slow the German Panzers rush towards Dunkirk (Bertrand, Michel (1982) (in fr). La Marine française au combat 1939-1945 Tome 1 Des combats de l'Atlantique aux F.N.F.L., pp.76,110-112,116).

• If the USA showed concern about Bearn in Martinique in 1942, I dont think it was only because of the pro-Vichy leanings of her crew, but because of the strict obedience to Vichy's authorities of the French Flag Officer in French Western Indies, Admiral Robert. After the French authorities in North Africa joined the Allied side, with Admiral Darlan, after the November 1942 landings, and after the French West Africa did it in December 1942, he did not accept to join them. It is only after some troubles, in June 1943, that the French Antilles islands joined Free France. I told «Free France», because Admiral Robert yielded to the General de Gaulle's representative in the USA, Henri Hoppenot. But it does not mean that Bearn was integrated in the Free French Naval Forces (as I tried to tell you about the article on French battleship Lorraine)! In this time, second half of 1943, there were no longer Free French Naval Forces, but French Naval Forces in Great-Britain, which were in a proccess of merging with the French Navy in Africa (Forces Maritimes d'Afrique). I perfectly understand that all this is difficult to understand for American people, seventy years after. But if you are interested, all this is perfectly explained in English, in Le Masson, Henri (1969). Navies of the Second World War The French Navy Volume 1. London: Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd ISBN 0356-02384-2, pp. 51-53, and I can scan you these three pages but I dont know to send it on Wikipedia... But you may read too what I edited in the talk page of French battleship Richelieu, under Free French Flag.

So, from my French point of view, instead «the ship was handed over to the Free French Naval Forces», I would prefer « the ship joined the Allies side ».Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I finally found that French book on their aircraft carriers that I failed to write down before. It's Les porte-avions français des origines (1911) à nos jours by Francis Dousset, Editions de la Cité, 1978. There's a copy at Michigan if you can find time to work on it over the break. I've hung on to a few books past their due dates so I can't ILL myself for a while yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I requested it through ILL - there are two copies fairly close to me (one's at Ball State, and I've gotten books from there before, so it shouldn't be a problem for the library to get it). I should have plenty of time over the break to get to the article. I'll let you know when it comes in. We'll also have to work in the changes suggested by Paul-Pierre above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I can help out with translation work if you can scan pages for me as I'll have a lot of time over break as well. If I've counted everything up correctly, all we need to do for the BC FT is get Saratoga promoted and the battlecruiser article up to speed although we should still send the list of BCs to FLC and promote everything else as time permits, like the Alaskas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, my French is pretty rusty so I might need to take you up on that. Yes, it looks like we have 30 FA/FLs right now, and we need 31 for 50%. I just put the BC list up for FLC, so hopefully in a few weeks we'll have the required number of stars. I looked through my articles, and O class battlecruiser might be ripe for an overhaul for a run at FAC, and I could probably bang the Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck articles into shape too, but they need a bit more work. But before I get to those, I hope to bang out the Bremens, so this is a bit closer to completion.

But before I get to any of that, I have to finish the last 2 papers for the semester, so I should get back to those. About 15 pages left to write between the two of them, so hopefully I'll be done by Wednesday or so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen another book on Béarn and I finally found the reference. It's Moulin, Jean, Lucien Morareau, and Claude Picard. 1990. Le Bearn et le Commandant Teste. Bourg en Bresse: Marines édition. There's one copy in San Francisco that you should be able to borrow without any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and and the article is nicely done. I made a few tiny comments at Talk:French battleship Démocratie/GA1 for you to address.

Meanwhile the article is on hold

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Reviewed your nomination and left a few comments at Talk:French battleship Vérité/GA1.

Wiki so slow right now - loses edits and such. Sorry!

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Passed GA. Congratulations! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing those three articles, Matthew! Your hard work doing these reviews is much appreciated :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My master plan has been discovered. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I'm coming for you first then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback for you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that - those old class articles need to be updated with the material from Staff's books, but I don't know exactly when I'll have the time to do any of it, ya know? Parsecboy (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know the feeling – I'm sure you've noticed my total lack of article writing. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and Sturm hasn't been all that active with writing lately - seems OMT is in a bit of a slump right now. I wonder how much of that is the fact that a lot of the "sexy" articles have been written, and now all we have are the harder ships to write about? Probably not so much for the three of us, since we're all legitimately busy, but perhaps so for the other editors who have done a bit here and there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely – we have most of the American ships left to go, which should be the easiest to write about! The Italian ships will be the hardest, I think. Cam's busy with school, White Shadows/Thurgate/East of Borschov aren't editing anymore, Buggie edits sparingly, and Bushranger is onto other topics. We should see if there's anyone we can assimilate to help us with finishing... it's nice to have Cerandon, but perhaps there's a younger but enthusiastic editor (like me c. 2008!) out there we can mentor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the one problem with the American ships is that you have to cut away all the old DANFS copy and replace it with better sources where available. I got about a quarter of the way through USS Arkansas (BB-33) back in March, before someone started yelling about how I was "[tearing the article] apart". I may go back and finish the work at some point, but I didn't need the hassle at the time, and now I just don't have the time to do it. You're right about the Italian ships, though I thought the early French ships would be a monster too, but between Sturm and I, we cleaned them up pretty quickly over the summer. Hopefully the same will hold true for the Italians. I suppose it's just a part of the life cycle of a project like this - the initial excitement is gone, and now that the core group has gotten busy in real life, not much is going to happen. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Harumph, that's just silly. Why anyone would prefer a DANFS copy over a regular article (whether on Wikipedia or not) is beyond me... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, don't ask me. Maybe he liked the flowery, olde tyme-y language ;) Be that as it may, it gave me the impetus to rework part of the interwar section last night. I might just finish this article yet! (But maybe it'll take until 2015 ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Finish? These articles are never finished. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you might never finish your babies, but I don't intend on continually working on every article I've ever written. Once they're at a suitable level of quality (you know, GA), I'm they're "finished" for me :P Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

They're finished enough for me too, but it seems like I find something wrong every time I click on them. :P Tangent- let me know when you have time to work on the Signpost blurb so I can plan to fit it in somewhere. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

Oh, I don't ever have that problem, mainly because I do it right the first time :P Yeah, I lost track of that after we decided that Von Hase might be the better choice. Stuff got busy and whatnot. Maybe I'll have some time this weekend to start rewriting it, thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

fyi; this was requested yesterday, at my suggestion. Gerda is asking about the naming of it without the “ß”. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll drop by over there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen. I'm not going to make a fuss about it, but will note that I've seen a lot of articles at poor names due to that biased WP:AT. There needs to be a large hole bored in that. It is about cementing nineteenth century practises in place. And I know that lots of sources hew to those practises. We can do better. The various diacritics and European language characters such as “ß” should all be use much more in the interest of educating people about the proper names of things. ⌥ Option+s is no big deal. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't so much have a horse in that race, and more importantly, I don't have the time to storm that particular hill (how's that for overusing metaphor?). If a new consensus were to emerge that non-English characters like the eszett were allowed, I'd be happy to rename the articles I've written that it would affect. But, I'm also not interested in being the test case. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

	majestic battleships
	Thank you for quality articles and lists on battleships, especially Seiner Majestät Schiff Friedrich der Große, knowing "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 January 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I'm glad there are no hard feelings over the eszett issue. I've been busy the past couple days and haven't had time to look at the discussion - I should have time later today. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I realized that on the ship it probably says GROSSE - all capital, that is. In German you can't say the same in lowercase, had to be "große", not "grosse", but I don't want to start another attempt at introducing something that doesn't go well with Wikipedia formatting rulz ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example, compare title in normal writing and on the poster ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't thought that the name on the ship itself would have been all-capitalized, but then I remembered to look at the period postcards (see for instance this one of HANNOVER'). Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

coming soon - anticipating readers who don't know about ships and German spelling conventions, I would like to see a link to an explanation of SMS and a note about GROSSE/Große early on in the article, not hidden in a note after the English (!) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't access my borrowed copy of Gröner right now and wonder if you could look this ship up for me. I've got a new book on Tirpitz and it's got some interesting details on his service aboard her as a cadet so I figure that I ought to fill out the article some.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be able to look it up this afternoon. Do you just want the technical section filled out? Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have filled in the data available from my British sources, but I'd appreciate any data from when it was in German service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do - I'm on campus for the next 3 hours or so, but I should be able to get to it after that. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you took issue with me removing links you consider valid from articles. I was basically following WP:Repeatlink when doing so. I might have overdone it a bit in some of the articles especially those with long leads. But I am quite certain you will agree with me that we don't need two links to the battle of the Westerplatte in the same paragraph in the article on the Deutschland-class. It might be a good idea to rethink the linking in the lead to places and ship yards as this is mostly linked in the infobox already. Three links to Stettin in one article seems a bit excessive to me. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK does not apply to links that are in the lead section or infobox and are repeated in the main body. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, an IP editor removed cited content from the article. I noticed that you had a similar issue with the same IP address. How do we proceed here? Thanks! I just bought a new book in Bismarck. I consult you soon on how and if you want to include some of the Info MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled back most of his edits and reblocked for three months. I don't know why he has this crusade against German language on en.wiki. Let me know if he returns after the block expires. What's the book? I'll be curious to see if there's anything new it can add to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Gaack, Malte & Carr, Ward (2012). Schlachtschiff Bismarck (in German). BoD – Books on Demand. ISBN 978-3-8448-0179-8.

It is my first of a series of three. It talks mostly about the crew but also about some interesting details such as how the engines worked, where the captains and admirals cabins where located MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see us add the following table, it is derived from page 33 of the book mentioned above. I would also like to mention (page 26), that the majority of the engine room personnel came from the German cruiser Karlsruhe, which was lost in 1940. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Division	Description	Division officer
1st Division	Seafaring personnel, operating staff of the heavy and medium artillery and their weapon control systems	Kapitänleutnant Hermann Schaaf
2nd Division		Kapitänleutnant Helmut Tils
3rd Division		Kapitänleutnant Karl Knappe
4th Division		Oberleutnant zur See Hans Kühn
5th Division	Seafaring personnel, operating staff of the anti-aircraft artillery and their weapon control systems	Oberleutnant zur See Jürgen Brandes
6th Division		Kapitänleutnant Rudolf Troll
7th Division	Functionaries such as carpenters, cooks, clerks, cobblers, tailors, etc.	Kapitänleutnant Karl Mihatsch
8th Division	Artillery mechanics and ammunition handlers	Oberleutnant (W) Gerhard Hinz
9th Division	Hydrophone, wireless, and radio operators, signalmen and coxswains	Kapitänleutnant Klaus Krueger
10th Division	Stokers and engine personnel	Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Gerhard Junack
11th Division		Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Albrecht Hasselmeyer
12th Division		Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Werner Schock

Did you know that the 7th divsion was augmented by 27 civil servants, all lost their lives on 27th May? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Officially 2145 men (Gaack and Carr, page 16) lost their lives on Bismarck. They are all documented by Gaack and Carr. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I've left some comments at Talk:Liberté class battleship/GA1. Nice job but there are a couple of confusions and suggestions.

Meanwhile I put the article on hold.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

May I nominate German battleship Tirpitz for today's featured article on November 2, 2012.

I don't mind if you nominate it, but I'll warn you that SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) just ran on 15 October, so two German battleship articles in 3 weeks might be too much for some people. Given that it's only the 76th anniversary, and not a nice round number like 75 or 100, that might not be enough to convince people to run it. Good luck though! Parsecboy (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but no worries. You two worked it out all by yourselves. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we probably would have kept going around in circles if you hadn't piped up :) In any case, I'm glad we seem to have reached a suitable solution. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Being unaware the OTM was specialized to battleships, I unknowingly added the OMT category to its talk page. Someone from OMT removed that catagory, with a clear explanation why. I agree with the removal. I am a huge fan of large ships, and have toured two battleships; USS Alabama and USS Missouri. Two of the spare barrels for the 16 inch guns on Missouri were recently moved to WWII era coastal defense forts, another of my areas of interest. Buster40004 Talk 16:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice - as far as battleships go, I've only ever been to USS North Carolina, but a goal of mine is to make it to Pearl Harbor to see both Missouri and Arizona. I have toured several other warship types though, including the WWII-era destroyer in DC (the name eludes me at the moment), the U-505 in Chicago, and the ships in Baltimore (Taney, Torsk, and Constellation). If there was one ship I'd like most to visit, it would probably be HMS Caroline (after they restore her, of course), since she's the last surviving veteran of the Battle of Jutland. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I too have toured U-505. I have been aboard an active-duty submarine, USS Tang (SS 563) and three others, USS Bowfin, USS Silversides, USS Drum, all in the water.

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the October 2012 Military history WikiProject Contest with 63 points from 11 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AR :) I'm surprised I placed second - I wasn't really paying attention. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

She's a boat, not a ship. The lake freighters in the Great Lakes are called "boats", and only the ocean-going craft are "ships". Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if it can be lifted out of the water, it's a boat. If not, it's a ship. Allow me to point out that the article in question routinely refers to the vessel as a ship. Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe outside of the Great Lakes, but she was always called a "boat" or an "ore boat". The article's been reverted twice today to restore the boat wording. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You're doing the reverting, no one else. In any case, there are numerous sources that call her a ship. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are other discussions on Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald about how she was a boat, not a ship. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Veterans Day - Pendright (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too! Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just forget it. This was just me being stupid. Have your way! I'm out of it. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why your edit summary of "please don't do that" is a response to my edit that you reverted which was accompanied by an edit summary clearly pointing -- for the second time (the first revert was made without edit summary, and ignoring my edit summary) -- to wp:listpeople. It clearly requires that there be a wp article or appropriate RS refs. If you disagree, please explain why you disagree with some analysis greater than your edit summary which simply requests that I not follow wp:LISTPEOPLE. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said on your talk page? Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Good move! I honestly approve on the firm stand you have taken here. Thanks for your support. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to lend a hand. Deleting material en masse because you're slavishly following a guideline is not how you build an encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Parsec, In regards to this comment you should be careful about using the admin tools in relation personal attacks which include critical comments about yourself (many apologies if I've miss-interpreted your post!; I'm making this post only as I've recently seen a couple of good admins land themselves in trouble in comparable circumstances). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to block the IP myself, I just felt that explaining the hoops I'd jump through would dilute the "threat". Thanks for the advice though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Wells Cathedral School. I was getting a bit overwhelmed.— Rod ^talk 16:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was revising SMS Emden (1916) one section at a time, making it slightly more concise and slightly reducing its number of bytes. Your almost instant reversion of one section while I was editing another, without either asking whether I intended to revise the other sections or waiting to see whether I would do so, is not what I can call WP:AGF.

Nor was the fact that you dislike having two different inline citation formats (temporarily, had you but asked first) any reason to revert en bloc those numerous parts of the revision that had not changed any inline citation formats. Motacilla (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the number of bytes for an article that short is not a particularly useful task. And please do not throw around irrelevant policies. That I disagreed with the validity of your edits does not mean I thought you made them in bad faith.

Your edits introduced other unhelpful issues, apart from the mixed citation format. First, M-dashes don't get spaces around them, only N-dashes do. Second, there's no need to add sub-section headers to a five-paragraph section. You also made numerous word changes like "around" -> "about" for no obvious purpose. I noted as much in my edit summary. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the refs. I hope it meets the standards. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cruisers of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldmark (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) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting the Mahan class destroyer article carried the inline citations needed banner, I decided to see if I could help get it removed. So I included additional material more germane to the article’s subject, restated some existing text, deleted some, and added references and inline citations. The first two combined note/references were in place; I added the remaining notes and the references. The Notes section uses (what I call) the Reflist method, which has me at sea. Although I was able to add the notes, I don’t seem to have the moxie to bring them out of hiding for a required page change. Question: would you have the time or the inclination to checkout the article? Pendright (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I have plenty of time now that my semester is all but over (all that's left is to grade the final, which is on Wednesday). Hmm, the references appear to be working for me - maybe your browser has a problem? One thing I like to do with the reflist template is to add "|25em" to it, which splits the refs into columns (the template would look like {{reflist|25em}}) I removed the references needed template though, and updated the article assessment on the talk page. The article is much better than where it was a week ago! If you're looking to keep working on it, you might take a look at C and D class destroyer, an article User:Sturmvogel 66 did, for some ideas about what else you could add. I'd recommend a table of the ships with the building data and fate, for starters. If you need help converting the table, I'd be happy to help. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the references needed template, and for updating the article assessment on the talk page. My plan is to keep working on the article. I like your idea of a table, but I’ll surely need your help to do it. While I appreciate your offer, my immediate problem is how to get at the notes so I can change one page number.  ????? Good luck on Wednesday. Pendright (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me whip up the basic table...

Hull number	Name	Builder	Laid down	Launched	Completed	Fate
DD-364	Mahan	United Dry Dock	12 June 1934	15 October 1935	18 September 1936	Scuttled on 7 December 1944, after damage by kamikazes
DD-365	Cummings
DD-366	Drayton

There's the basic table format, you'd just want to fill out every section for each ship in the class, just copy and paste the formatting for each one. As for changing one of the notes, you should be able to fix it right in the editing window. I find it easiest to click on the ^ next to the note I need to change, since that jumps you up to where it is in the text - makes it easier to track down exactly where it is. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The fog lifted with your instructions, and I was able to fix the note. But now it seems a heavier fog has set in; it has to do with the table itself. Formatted and in the proper location, I believe I can load the information in the table. Question: can I transport your table directly to the article (if so, how), or does it have to be reformatted within the article? If it does, I fear I’m in over my head. If your patience has not run out, could you help me over the hump? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can transfer this table directly into the article - I went ahead and copied it over now, but in the future, you can just go into the editing window and copy all of the template code (everything between the curly brackets) and then paste it into the article. And no, my patience has not run out, I'm always glad to help :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m grateful for your help and the cordial way in which you always give it. Old dogs can (slowly) learn new tricks, thanks to people like you. The addition of the table definitely improves the article. Pendright (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing your fleet of GANs. Expect them done within a few days. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, I appreciate you taking on all of them at once! Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

They are nice articles. One comment; most of these German ships engaged, fought, or operated against the British. Should they not use British rather than American English? Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dapi (and it's good to see you back around Wikipedia, by the way). In my opinion, that's not enough of a strong national tie to require British English (and it becomes more of a problem when you consider, for example, the aircraft carriers of the Kido Butai, since they engaged both American and British forces in World War II, or many of the German U-boats that battled American, British, and Canadian escort vessels in the Atlantic). Or, another possible situation, the Japanese battleship Kongo, which was built by the British (so should it use BrEng?) but fought the Americans (so AmEng?). There are too many situations like these that make a consistent policy along the lines you suggest difficult if not impossible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One question at Gazelle class cruiser for you. I'll pass it then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Gazelle passed. Minor note with Niobe so I am placing it on hold, its more of a procedural hold for a question and one tiny point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

One passed (SMS Nymphe), one on hold for issues. Talk:SMS Ariadne/GA1 Some prose issues, nothing major again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I replied there too. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

According to your template for Gazelle class cruiser, am I mistaken in this assumption?

• Gazelle 1st
• Niobe 2nd
• Nymphe 3rd
• Thetis 4th
• Ariadne 5th
• Amazone 6th
• Medusa 7th
• Frauenlob 8th
• Arcona 9th
• Undine 10th

Thetis is listed as fourth, SMS Ariadne is listed as fourth, SMS Amazone is listed as fifth, Medusa the 6th, Frauenlob the 8th, Arcona 9th, Undine the last. I've edited the pages to correct it to reflect the right order, if I am wrong, just revert it back.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Gonna add this here. SMS Arcona seems to have a problem with the Medusa in the lede. See talk, I put it on hold for now. Not sure if anything else is messed up on it as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these, Chris - I've replied on the two GA pages. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've passed them and did a few more reviews, all with some minor to trivial fixes. Though I hate to bug after passing them, but you might want to check the licensing of the images for the public domain tag. I realized it on the Undine that the licensing while truly in the public domain does not have the template marking it as public domain listed. The little warning icon finally got my attention. I did the review up to Bremen and I have begun to be a bit picker about inline sourcing and prose. On Bremen you actually end the article by referring to another ship, so its a style thing. But hey, that's what GA is for right. I don't want to be seen as 'rubber stamping' them, so I am going to nitpick what I can simply because I could pass most of them without concern, but that would be too easy and a bit lax for someone like yourself. I think you'd agree that for each error or issue caught is basically trivial compared to the nightmare that has become the Friedrich Eckenfelder GA I picked up. I hadn't done GANs for awhile, but yours are enjoyable to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Chris, and I appreciate the nitpicking. I'll look through the images and see what else needs fixing. And that Eckenfelder GAN looks like fun ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question/suggestion: Do you think that the articles sufficiently covers the fact that she carried 4 Arado Ar 196 aircraft? The fact is briefly mentioned in the infobox. We have a few good images at commons. I think it would be nice to see and read some more detail. Just a suggestion! MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• 
  hangar
• 
  catapult
• 
  hangar and catapult

Thanks for the suggestion, MB. I added a line to the descriptive section about the Arados, but I don't know where the photos would be useful or would fit. The article already has a large number of images, and I don't know where I could squeeze in one of these (and have it make sense in the context of the text). Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the class article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I had forgotten about the class article. Now that I think about it, the class page should probably have a section about the aircraft and facilities. That would be a good place for one of the photos. I'm traveling for the holidays, so I won't have access to my books, so it'll probably have to wait a little while. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a smart-ass comment on the review page. Sorry for that. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries (and I didn't take it as particularly smart-assed, FWIW) - I'll probably be able to add the details later today. Thanks for checking HRS, as always. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nate,Thanks for your reply..I think between us we can sort out the story and save us both getting queries... Sorry to hear about the KBG book, the second edition appeared in 2001 as a limited edition and sold out in a year. Since then I have debated printing a third edition but time has not been on my side as i spent six years writing a book on East African Shipwrecks and Salvage, which includes all the WW1 ships sunk, if you would like a copy I will send you one gratis. .As to references I have dozens and can let you have my sources... However re Hoyt and Miller, Hoyt had limited access to files in UK and Germany and as far as i can see used other peoples tales of which there are hundreds, and in some cases just perpetrated a myth. Miller read Hoyt and continued the tale. Miller says the White Flag on Pegasus was a lone sailor with a white sheet... It took me years to get to the bottom of the White Flag incident on Pegasus as everyone denied it happened including a crew member I met in 1976...But if you spend enough time in the right files you can find what you are looking for. I found Ingles original letter to the Admiralty written three days after Pegasus sank. Take the case of the KBG original ships drawings, I was told in Koblenz in 1999 they did not exist yet in 2005 I found them. What had happened was the Russians stole the German archives at the end of WW2 but years later they decided that as the cold war was now over they could be returned.. It took years to sort out the tons of paper but eventually they were available to the public.. If you have an email address it will be easier to correspond.. my email saburihotmail.com B rgds Kevin - Kuzama (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I just sent you an email. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd actually note which ships Germany kept active under the Treaty. Wikisource does not mention them, as it probably shouldn't, and the current article on the Treaty states the number of ships, yet does not list their names. Since we have articles on the ships, that would be cool to put as a foot note explaining the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bzuk, you too! Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Could you please have a look at the A-class review page. The 8.8 cm configuration still does not match HRS. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I had forgotten about this one. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am admirer of your prodigious output of quality articles, although as a member of WP:Scottish Islands I've never felt able to comment on your various related FACs. On taking a quick peek at the latest one I noted two, arguably three typos on File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg. It is definitely Switha, not Swita and consequently Switha Sound as well. The name as used locally is also Glims Holm (very occasionally 'Glimsholm') and Glimps Holm would seem to be a typo on the Ordnance Survey Maps that has been introduced into a variety of other publications. As this last is clearly an RS I'll understand if you don't feel any need to change it. All the best for Christmas - and of course with the FAC. Ben MacDui 15:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this problem, Ben. The guy who made the map unfortunately retired about a year ago, so I filed a request at the Graphics Lab so hopefully they can fix it. Thanks, and I hope you have a merry Christmas too! Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this. I make the png version, but now I got to switch it back to SVG format. A few more minutes and I'll try and figure it out. I've never uploaded media to Wikipedia before, but the changes were easy enough to make. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good and congratulations on the promotion. Ben MacDui 10:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, the map looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be affected by a bug on the display, the correct one is not updating properly hence the confusion earlier in the edit history, but I think I could make specific maps, charts and stuff with some practice. At the least, and after the bug is fixed, I could make specific highlights and such for the other ships if you wish. Just drop me a message, it wasn't too hard to learn Inkscape. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed that earlier. I can't tell what changed between most of the revisions, apart from the one where the blue background slid to one side. But all's well that ends well, right? There are a number of old maps where SVG versions would be pretty handy. For instance, there are a couple maps of the Battle of the Falkland Islands (File:Falklandschlacht.jpg and File:Battle of the Falkland Islands (1914) Map.png). Somebody already made File:Battle of Coronel map.svg, which could be a model for the Falklands map. A better version of File:Operation Albion Map.jpg would also be very useful, especially if it had some of the important geographic features (Kassar Wiek, Tagga Bay, etc.) more prominently highlighted. There are probably more, if you have the time and inclination, these are just the first things to pop into my head. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If time permits, after the holiday season, could you favor me with one more look at the Mahan class destroyer article, along with your assessment of it? I have completed the table you set-up, added something about wartime armament, and cleaned the article up a bit more. All the best of the season! Pendright (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem at all. I'm still out of town for the holidays, but I should be home by Friday if the big storm that's supposed to dump a foot of snow on northern Ohio today doesn't snow us in. I hope you enjoy the holidays too! Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. I formatted a few things in the article, and I just bought a copy of A Man and His Ship (the biography of William Francis Gibbs), so if I get time, I'll try to add some information and references. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! A hard second look at the Mahan-class destroyer article tells me that it is still in need of a ton of work. Could I take a rain check on my request for now, and bug you later when it might be worthy of your time? Thanks and Happy New year! Pendright (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem - just let me know when you're ready. Happy New Year to you as well! Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you plan on mentioning that Günther Lütjens was her commander? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had overlooked the list of commanders when I wrote the article. I'll get to it soonish (though I might not have much time here over the next couple of days). Thanks for reminding me :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh, guess I had time to do it now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class medal with swords for your work on the List of battlecruisers, SMS Prinzregent Luitpold and SMS Thüringen articles, which were promoted to A-Class between July and December of this year. Kirill [talk] 01:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Königsberg class cruiser (1927), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see some room for improving the article. Some very important people have been involved. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Konrad Adenauer, major of Cologne at the time and first West German Chancellor, held christening speech HRS v5 p96
2. Wilhelm Groener
3. Hans Zenker
4. Otto Schniewind, commander
5. Otto Backenköhler, Günther Lütjens brother in law
6. Theodor Burchardi

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his efforts in the December 2012 Military History Monthly Article Writing Contest, placing first with a total of 179 points from 27 articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

List of battlecruisers - in "key" paragraph there is no description of "Armor". PMG (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In "Great Britain" part on last column some of lines are "moved to left" some (last) are centered. Its not a big problem, but can you/somebody else fix this? PMG (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these to me attention, both should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem - I am trying to be helpfull in OMT even if I don`t write articles on en.wiki. But back to this list - now "Great Britain" table have additional column on right part. And something personally from me - this article is best example how bad/sick is system of tables on wiki. I have huge respect for you that you make this tables. Its like hell for programmers, and for tester it`s Shooting fish in a barrel. PMG (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Station Group Banak/GA1. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) This is from the book: Gröner, Erich; Jung, Dieter (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945. Vol. 1. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-87021-790-6. {{cite book}}: |first3= missing |last3= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help).--Inctructor (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the design speed, not service speed. German warships of this period routinely exceeded their design speed by several knots (note, for instance, König's performance at Jutland, exceeding 24 knots). Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a discrepancy according to the design capacity of 28 000 or 31 000 hp.

Article Kaiser-class battleship makes 28,000 hp, articles SMS Kaiser (1911), SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), SMS Kaiserin 31,000 hp. Which number is correct?

• Gröner - 28 000
• Breyer - 31 000 --Inctructor (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with Groener - he was working from the navy archives in the 1930s, and Breyer gets a lot of things wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• After renaming the article from Kaiser class battleship in the Kaiser-class battleship was lost link to Wikimedia Commons. How to restore it? It is advisable not to rename the Wikimedia Commons, as other languages ​​refer to the old name. --Inctructor (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You can force the template to go to a specific location, but it looks like you figured that out on some of the other articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review: Talk:Conte di Cavour-class battleship/GA1. Waiting impatiently (humor intended) for your response. WikiCopter (t • c • onau • omt) 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Hi Nate,

you moved SM U-18 (Germany) earlier today claiming no other country had a submarine named SM U-18. May I point out to you that SM UC-14 was actually assigned the number U-18 in the Austro-Hungarian Navy, when first operating in the Mediterranean. What it comes down is, that UC-14 would have been committing acts of piracy when its mines sank the Italian ships Intrepido, Citta Di Palermo, and Re Umberto in 1915 if it had not been outflagged to Austria-Hungary as Italy only declared war on Germany in August 1916. I am aware that this is a minor concern, but it is a fine line we are threading here between legal acts of war and outright war crimes. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know UC-14 was renamed while in Austro-Hungarian service. It doesn't even say that she served under their flag in the article - that should probably be made clear. I did tweak the index page to note that while UC-14 was in the Austro-Hungarian Navy she was renamed U-18, and I added her to the U-18 index as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have this on your radar? Just wondering because I don't see you taking actions on the comments made. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just been pretty busy in real life. I'll get to it soon. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wdford (talk · contribs) is suggesting to make changes to the articles. I question if a mere talk page discussion is sufficient to make such changes to articles which are featured and had gone through more than one review. Until this is answered, I am not supportive of the proposed change. My understanding is that each article has to stand on its own. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look and see what I can find on him. Have you seen the German Wiki article on him? uboat.net also has an article on him. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping for something more of the dead tree variety :) This is probably something I'm going to want to dig into when I get to dissertation research (specifically his role in evaluating the lessons of WWI), since a number of people have criticized German U-boat design (and the Type VII in particular), and I'd like to blow some holes in their arguments, if I can ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what I found as sources MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Karl F Hildebrand and Christian Zweng, Die Ritter des Ordens Pour le mérite des I. Weltkriegs. Erstmals mit Foto, Verleihungsbegründung, Dienstlaufbahn, Beförderungen und verliehenen Orden: Band 2: H-O: Band 2. ISBN 978-3764824730.
• Hanns Möller, Geschichte der ritter des Ordens Pour le mérite im weltkrieg: M-Z. Unfortunately the book is not close to where I live worldcat.org

Thanks, MB. I don't know if I'll be able to get my hands on those either. It might just have require digging through archives. Well, at least I know this is something worth looking into now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made a further edit to the reporting of the SMS Yorck sinking with which you may disagree: [2]. You may wish to edit further or discuss. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, the only change I'd make is this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

An improvement! Pol098 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

and then proceeded to Vigo from 12 to 14 June, where she joined Hessen, Elsass, and Hessen - quite a lot of Hessen, don`t you think? :). Maybe some linking will help. PMG (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, should have been Hannover :) Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I was checking to see if I can be support the A-class nimination and noticed that you had left three of my comments unaddressed. I assumed you had missed them?! If you feel that they can be ignored then please just comment briefly why you feel so. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just missed them. I have a stack of essays to grade this weekend, but I should be able to get to it early next week. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

I will. The book contains many sources, I will look for the best one. (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC))

All you need is a page number from the book that makes the claim you're citing. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Regensburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (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) 12:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)