User talk:Parsecboy

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

Mississippi class battleship

Mississippi class battleship I haven't done much at WP for a while. I ended up getting the addiction back this week and blowing off life for a while. I took this orphan stub and tried to follow the lead of your excellent German Navy articles, and one of the older US BBs that got FA. It has a ways to go, especially some deeper info on the technical issues, that I'm going to develop in sandbox. Would you mind giving me some feedback on my progress. Cheers! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure - the article looks much better than it did just a few days ago, nice work! I suppose I'll bullet these out so they're easier to read:

• One thing I noticed is you'll need conversions for all of the figures (you can use the {{convert}} template for that, like 13,000 long tons (13,000 t) - I'm assuming long-tons - for the standard displacement).
• Another thing I'd recommend is to not use the naval-history.net website - it doesn't provide its own references, and wouldn't stand up in a GA or FA review. I always prefer paper sources whenever possible, and only websites when they have some sort of published expert behind them.
• I don't know if you've checked DANFS, but it might have some useful information (and potentially more useful photos).
• This is probably for a little further down the road, but since you haven't done much here in a while, you might consider putting the article through a peer review cross-listed at WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST to help you get into the swing of the formal reviews like for A-class and FAC.

I don't have as many sources on hand on US warships, but I do have Conway's 1906-1921 and Peter Hore's Battleships of World War I, which may be useful for you. Also, I have access to OSU's library (which is pretty good - it has nearly ever edition of Warship International back to the 1960s), so if there's anything you need I could probably get it through them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks! This is great feedback. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I could use some help researching technical data which might be available in your reference sources. If you have the time, could you look at: User talk:Kevin Murray/mississippi, where I've put what is mostly a copy of the technical section from one of your articles, about the German equivilent (i.e., last pre dreadnought). I bolded the info that needs to be replicated. Any help will be very much appreciated. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure, I have to head off to work shortly, and I work again tomorrow, but I should have time on Monday to see what I can add. I should be able to get most of the information you need from Conways. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Outstanding! Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I got a bit done on the general characteristics and machinery, though there isn't as much information available to me on those subjects as for the German ships - Groner really has an incredible level of technical detail that I haven't seen equaled anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the armament section, I converted all references to gun sizes to what seems to be a conversion code (e.g., "12-inches" to "12 inch" - 12 & nsp ; inch). Is this the correct process/style? I don't see the conversion, but I was just copying the process, assuing that it was doing some good. Can you check this and/or point me in the right direction? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Franz von Hipper

Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Franz von Hipper.

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Franz von Hipper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the subpage watchlisted so I'll see it when you fill it out. I look forward to working with you on this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article's passed! Congratulations!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Drink to that? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will! Thanks for reviewing the article and for the tea! Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Piave River (1809)

I see that you are an Ohio State grad and I'll swallow my Illini pride (U of Illinois '75) and ask a Big Ten rival for a favor. I noticed that Andynomite moved Battle of Piave River (1809) to Battle of Piave River. We had a nice chat on our talk pages in which I pointed out that the WW1 battle (Battle of the Piave River) was too close. Could you (or another person who is empowered to do so) revert Battle of Piave River so that Battle of Piave River (1809) is used again? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I just moved the article back. And good luck getting the Illibuck back this year ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that you fixed it. Somehow I never heard of the Illibuck, though I never missed a game between 1971 and 1974. It's probably because the Illini always lost. Now I feel as if I were cheated out of a key part of my education. Djmaschek (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I never heard of it at OSU either. Apparently this big tradition is sort of a secret. I only learned about it here on WP. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Kawachi class battleship

I was reading about various pre-dreadnought ships and ran across the article on the Japanese Kawachi class battleship. There is an apparent contradiction in the lead paragraph where it is described as both a dreanought and pre dreadnought. It, and the preceding class, appear to have a foot in each camp, but there should be some consistency in the lead paragraph. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there was a bit of confusion on whoever added the description of the ships as dreadnoughts (i.e., they assumed that since the ships carried 12 12-inch guns they must be dreadnoughts). I changed it to "semi-dreadnought" and added a note explaining the reason for that classification. Does it make more sense now? Feel free to play with the wording if you can improve it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 05:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An article you were a significant contributor to was nominated at ACR without any notification -MBK₀₀₄ 05:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for sMS Braunschweig

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Hohum's talk page.
Message added 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

I've replied to everything.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		For prolific work on SMS Rheinland, SMS Kaiser (1911) and SMS Deutschland (1904); promoted to A-Class between August and September 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Swords. -MBK004 06:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)