User talk:Sturmvogel 66

British BCs

Hey Jason, quick question: in all of the British BC articles, you mention that the torpedo bulkheads were abreast the magazines and shell rooms; am I correct in reading that to mean that's the only portions of the ships protected by a bulkhead? I'd just look at Roberts myself, but like an idiot I returned it to the library last week. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done the same sort of thing, so you have plenty of company. The torpedo bulkheads only cover the magazines and shell rooms, not the machinery from Invincible through Tiger. From Renown onward, the bulkhead backs the bulge and is continuous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. I had considered scanning Roberts before I returned it, but decided against it. `Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how quickly you can get hold of the books, I'm a bit too impatient, so I prefer to have my own copy on hand. I'm in the process of being a scanning fool as I've got a bunch of volumes of Warship to do, along with Sokol, Burt's British predreadnought book and a few others. Cheaper than photocopying, although I do prefer reading them on paper.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

I hope those are not finished reviews. They don't offer me much help in improving them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The articles are pretty good already and only need the specified material added to be passed. If I give a line a + sign then it's good to go and needs no further work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These are part of a group of 16 that I have been working on together. I have added a lot of features to them mirroring what I have done with the other articles. I might have to expand Sims a bit more before it is really finished. I will try to finish these up tomorrow. I just want to make sure I have gotten all of them with the same types of features.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was wondering what was going on with them. Let me know when you're done with them. And, BTW, I'd strongly recommend that you do a few GA reviews yourself to help offset all of your GANs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Saint Cast

Have taken your advice and added citations. Please take another look to see if it is up to 'B' now. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations are now complete, but there's one bit of truly awkward prose that needs to be fixed that I've marked with a tag.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have rewritten passage.Tttom1 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to review my GAN articles. If there is any question, unclear statement or any suggestion for improvement, please make it. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 23:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you make it easy; well-written articles that comply with the MOS deserve it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, a quick suggestion about your GA reviews - when you pass an article, could you fill in the "|topic=" parameter on the GA template with the appropriate category? For military articles, the category is usually History. This helps to categorize the article properly. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you might want to add that to the instructions. I'll try to remember that from now on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is in the instructions on the GAN page, under "Pass" - that part's just in a footnote, so it's fairly easy to miss. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Y'all should make it more prominent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I noticed your GA nomination of Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya, and I have a question/remark: shouldn't the name be rendered Yekaterina, since this is the proper pronunciation of the name in Russian? Constantine ✍ 06:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

St. Charles Bay

This article is currently a GA nominee. Could you possibly give it a quick review before August 30? The reason I am asking is because you reviewed Lavaca Bay for me recently.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please be sure to get a map from somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have addressed all concerns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Lowe (lacrosse)

Come have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

infobox for Egyptian Labour Corps article

Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree this article as well as the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps article need info boxes, but I am not sure which template to use as the military unit template is so clearly designed for fighting units. Is there one for service units? --RoslynSKP (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jul-Dec 2009

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you help

With plain English here - [1] - ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand

Hello Sturmvogel 66. Some time ago I wrote an article about New Zealand in pl wiki. I found in all my sources, like Conway's or Colledge (2006), she was launching on 1st July. Can you tell me, why did you write 11th? Is this any mistake or that web source is correct and I don't know something about? Greetings KrzysM99 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a typo; I'll fix it momentarily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't ;). There is 11th on RNZN page. Change source. -- KrzysM99 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/cup

It appears that you are one of the finalists. I have put together a summary chart for us to sort of get to know each other. Feel free to come by and fill in User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/cup.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you link your historical submissions?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<puzzled>I suppose, but why bother? The numbers are good.</puzzled>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his great efforts in the August 2010 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing equal first with a total of 133 points from 23 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Sims/GA1

I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Josh Sims/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dyk hook

Hi. FYI, one of your hooks in the queue has been tweaked. There's a thread on it at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_article_not_in_boldface. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK by me--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Glorious

Hi Can you check teh article as this does not seem right the squadron was re-formed with Courageous as flagship along with her sister ship Courageous presume one of the names should be Glorius --Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, over-zealous use of copy-paste, I'm afraid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

French pre-dreads

I have to confess that was in waaay too much of a rush to find even the slightest unobvious resources for some of the ships. But for some, I think I busted my bones using Google Books. Good luck finding nice references for them. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of French-language titles that I'll have to request if we're ever going to get them to even GA. The Italian pre-dreadnoughts are going to be another problem and I don't even know of any Italian-language sources for their operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad La Galissonnière

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK noms

I have approved your hooks for Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina, Brazilian monitor Rio Grande, and Pará class monitor. Nice work.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Ericsson class monitor

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad Triomphante

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hey, Sturm: A discussion going on here indicates that it is good manners to thank the reviewers when an article you have edited is assessed to GA or better. I didn't extend thanks because I didn't know that it was done. Consider me to be like a foreigner who doesn't know the custom of tipping in American restaurants. Anyway, please accept my apologies and now my thanks for your assessment of the only two articles I have nominated for GA, Battle of Hampton Roads and Stephen R. Mallory. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that either. I think it might be one of those things that it's nice to do, but are rarely done because I've done lots of reviews and rarely been thanked, but then I never expected to be thanked, so I was not offended. At any rate, you're welcome; I hope you give me more opportunities to review your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian monitor Pará

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not goofing off

The new edition of Chicago is out, updated for the first time in 7 years, I believe. I think I can help most with the GAN backlog by dealing with copyediting issues in a bunch of different GANs, but I'd rather read the new Chicago first, and it's a lot to digest. Back soon, busier than before. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is better you than me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1000 pages, small type, organized according to their own special logic. Joy joy. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I won a copy of the 14th? edition (the early 80s one) in a giveaway by the UC Press, but have hardly ever looked at since it didn't cover my eternal question about the possessive plural of words that end in 's'.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pará class monitor

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nordenfelt guns

The NGB entries for both ships note a 25 mm Nordenfelt gun. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but the 1-inch Nordenfelt gun wasn't invented until the late 1870s and the NGB isn't a reliable source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While self-published, NGB is a secondary source maintained by expert editors and based entirely on Brazilian Navy sources. That's not the Nordenfelt gun I meant; this is. But, hey, it's your call :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article that you linked to is an overview of all Nordenfeldt guns, including the one that I linked to. Since I intend to submit these for GA rather soon I can't use NGB as it's not RS. Plus I'm curious why my main source mentioned the 11-mm guns for Alagoas and Piauí, but didn't mention these larger guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's curious indeed. I'll try to find a more reliable source and will let you know if I come up with something. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad Victorieuse

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian monitor Alagoas

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian monitor Rio Grande

-- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Goeben

I was just about to put Goeben up for FAC when I read this in the instructions: "If a nomination is archived...none of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate." I suppose what we could do is just put it up as just mine for now and you could add your name in a week. Or you could run it by Karanacs or Sandy - I doubt they'd object. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd thought co-noms were different. Oh well. I guess my name can't go up until the 14th then. I'll ask Karanacs, since he failed Indefatigable, and you can add my name if he says OK, or on the 14th if not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and put it up now, and we'll see what Karanacs says (she's a she, by the way). Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn this gender neutality!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's up here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs said that a co-nom is OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, go add your name. There's one thing Ed brought up about something you added that I didn't quite understand. Can you take a look? Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Glorious

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Talk:HMS Glorious/GA1.
Message added 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC

Hi Sturm. A couple of hours ago White shadows suggested that I should ask either Ed or you for info on whether or not to send this one up for another FAC. Since you are much less leniant the Ed (I don't want to be mean or anything), I decided to ask you first. So, do you think it's ready to take on another FAC? Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think your biggest problem is that there's really not much to the article because the ship didn't do a whole lot. It needs a copy edit. I cleaned up some of the propulsion stuff where you were mixed up, but the writing needs work. See if you can expand the bit about use of seaplanes during the Balkan Wars.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Neosho class monitor

Hello, your nomination of Neosho class monitor at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed Brazilian ironclad Barroso as well. The hook was too long, new ALT there.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

HNoMS Mjølner/HNoMS Mjølner (1868)

Hey, Sturmvogel. I'm a great fan of your work, really interesting reading about the 19 century warships of lesser-known navies. I just discovered that HNoMS Mjølner (1868) and HNoMS Mjølner are the same ship. Just look at this reference used for HNoMS Mjølner. This confuses me with regards which class Mjølner belonged to. Any thoughts? Manxruler (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the other article after I'd created my new one. I plan to merge them and since the class issue is confusing I'll keep both templates on the combined article. I have different sources that say that she was a member of both classes. The whole issue of the relationship between the Skorpionen and John Ericsson classes is uncertain as I have little doubt that they're related somehow, but I don't know how. And as I don't read Norwegian or Swedish the mystery isn't liable to be solved any time soon as I've tapped most of the English-language sources. If you want to take a stab at hunting down the relevant books and solving the mystery, be my guest. You've done some very nice work on Norwegian artillery, but I'd be happy to work with you on what may be unfamiliar territory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll have a look in my books and see what I can find. I've actually done a lot of work on Norwegian warships over the years, just not very recently. Manxruler (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I know the books are out there as I've seen references, but the language barrier makes it too much trouble to try and figure out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I just dived into my personal library and dug up a book that deals with all Norwegian naval vessels between 1814 and 2008. According to Norske marinefartøy by Sverre Mo Mjølner was not in the same class as Skorpionen, but was in the same class as Trudvang - a ship built at Karljohansvern in Norway. However, Mo has been wrong with regards to other naval vessels, so I don't trust him completely. Will continue looking. Manxruler (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And here we go: According to the trustworthy 90 år under rent norsk orlogsflagg by Marius Thomassen, Norway's first monitor was the Skorpionen, launched at Karljohansvern, and after that another three monitors were aquired: Mjølner, Trudvang and Thor. All these three vessels were built after drawings by John Ericsson, Mjølner having been built in Sweden and the other two in Norway. So, really, Trudvang at least is also a John Ericsson class monitor, and there was in reality no Skorpionen class. Skorpionen was a single-ship project. Manxruler (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this; I've been a bit busy of late. So does what else does Thomassen say? Who designed Skorpionen? So Trudvang and Thor were repeats of Mjølner, just built in Horten? Does he provide stats for any of these ships? Feel free to update the articles on all these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

French ironclad Alma

No doubt its on your watch list but just a note to say I have passed French ironclad Alma as a Good Article. Well done does this one go into OMT ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, she's a little too early for OMT, but thanks for asking. And thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad Suffren

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad Océan

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TACAMR-2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TACAMR-2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ironclad Marengo

Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neosho class monitor

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

70 pounder RBL Armstrong gun : Template:VictorianEraBritishNavalWeapons ?

Hi there, I've never heard of such a gun in service. There was a 64-pounder RBL which attempted to solve the problem of the Armstrong screw breech but as far as I know it never went into service. The template covers weapons in official Royal Navy and associated colonial navy service. Armstrong may have delivered some such guns to other countries as private orders but that's outside the scope of the template. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my mistake. According to Lambert's book on Warrior a 70-pdr was tested, but not accepted after it failed its tests. I've deleted it from the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyclops and John Ericsson class DYK submissions

I had to challenge a bunch of these at DYK because most of the individual ship articles are composed mostly of text from the related -class article. I suggest next time, you submit the individual ship articles and don't bother submitting the -class article, that way you will probably get more DYKs. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the way I calculate it when two new articles with shared text are submitted is by looking for 1500 characters of original text in the second and subsequent articles. That is, the shared text can count in one of the new articles, but the other has to have at least 1500 chars of new text in addition to the shared text. So when you submit articles with shared text, all of them except one have to have 1500 chars of new text in addition to the shared text. That may help you tweak your articles for max. DYKs next time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair. Main problem is that the ships didn't actually do much so there's not much unique text possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that :) One thing you could do though is to cut down on the individual ship service histories in the class article, just leaving a summary. That would give you more unique text in the individual ship articles. I don't think it's good practice to give a really detailed account of individual service histories in the class articles anyhow, because it means people who read both the individual ship and class articles end up reading exactly the same text in both. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I try to limit the individual ship histories in the class articles and just cover the highlights, but it's hard, depending on the amount of material available, to strike a balance. There's a lot of material, forex, in the Renown class article, that maybe should be in the ship article, but I normally put refit data in the class article. And that's the bulk of the stuff in the ship history section. OTOH, the stuff on the monitors was just about everything I knew and there was nothing to save for the ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's an individual call at the end of the day. I can see what you mean about the monitor articles. I do think you went a bit overboard on the Renown class article, but that's not really an issue here. Anyhow, I just thought I would make the suggestion, it's up to you how you how you want to organize your articles, but in cases where you only have a little info as I said it would be better to nominate the individual ship articles and forgo the DYK on the class article as you will get more DYKs that way :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian ironclad Barroso

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Princess

Not you ... HMS Princess Royal (1911) is in very good shape. Comments on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:White Shadows/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Hey Sturmvogel. I recently finished up the major writing parts of this new list. I know that there are several nitpicks here and there like precise dates for the date the sip was laid down, the launch dates, more citations in the lead and possibly a better image for the beginning of the list but are there any other issues that need to be worked out before I move this into the mainspace? All the best,--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's presentable enough to be moved into mainspace, IMO. It needs a copyedit, though, and I think that you know what else you have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do. I'll move it now and get to work on the issues that need fixing like citations in the lead, images, infobox info ect. and then it's off to ACR. Hopefully there will not be too many issues by the time I submit it there.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest submitting to WP:MHAR first to see if it meets B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. First off I need to get it onto the main-page and then add in the remaining info :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro

Calmer Waters 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coast Guard as an armed service

FYI, the U.S. Coast Guard most definitely is part of the military as an armed service. The five uniformed services that make up the Military of the United States are defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4):

The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C. § 1:

The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

Just thought you might be interested to know given the discussion at USS Constitution. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I sit corrected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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 19:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK hook is too long

Hello! Your submission of HNoMS Mjølner (1868) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC co-noms

My delayed response at User talk:Karanacs#Co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Renown class battlecruiser

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Warriors

That's a lovely read Sturmvogel, well done. If no-one else has picked it up by tomorrow night I might have time to GA review it too. My only comment from reading it through now is that there's no indication of who made the quote in the first section.

I'd love to help out with the other articles, although I (perhaps obviously) have less on the Black Prince! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody has less info on Black Prince, but between Ballard and Parkes I think we can make do. I do wish that I had more info on the capsizing incident while she was under construction. Hard to believe that the only things damaged were her masts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Phew, been a while since I did a GA! I hope it doesn't come across as too strict, I think my brain is a little more wired to A class and FA nowadays! Made some small prose adjustments, but have left more major issues up to you. Also, can I presume that we no longer transcribe the review page to the article's talk page? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the bot is supposed to handle the transclusion. The review was fine, just need to see if the changes made satisfy. Send me an email, I'd like to discuss plans for the rest of the class and maybe some of the other British ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I'll need to set up email on wiki first though. Probably be tomorrow. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Voroshilov

Hi, Sturm, I've started the GA review for Soviet cruiser Voroshilov. The review page is here. Please take a look when you get a chance. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Hello! Your submission of List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical filter FAC

There have been replies to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanical filter/archive1. Would you kindly now revisit the page and strike your comments if you think they have been addressed or else explain why you are still not satisfied. SpinningSpark 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scorpion class ironclad

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review HMS Tiger

Hi I have started the review but it does not seem to have transcluded onto the talk page the link is here for you. Talk:HMS Tiger (1913)/GA1. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellenic Naval Air Service

Thank you for your time reviewing the article. I'll work on the ga review points during the next hours.Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things:

Hey Sturm, just wanted to let you know I reviewed Neosho class monitor for GA, there's just a few little things that need to be fixed. Also, have you seen these? You could put them up as a gallery in the development section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclops class monitor

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Cyclops (1871)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Günther Specht

Thanks for passing it. I've notified the author, (Perseus71). Dapi89 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC) ‎

DYK for HMS Hydra (1871)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: FTC/GTCs

At Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure, the procedure for promotions are outlined, noting pretty much everything you'd have to do. Best way to go about it is trial and error, so if you want to try and promote a GT go for it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple tweaks, but I don't see anything that's actually wrong. Looks good for a first promotion, thanks for doing that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do Like a Virgin tomorrow. Anything of modest significance that I should do differently? I'm feeling too lazy to check back through all those pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Warrior class ironclad

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sevastopol

I know I've been bugging you about this since May, but could you please check if McLaughlin has anything on the older, pre dread Petropavlovsk calss, specifically User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I really want to know how if I have anything left before I can put this in the mainspace (besides fixing the citeweb templates and stuff like that).

TIA,

Buggie111 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Buggie111 (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit distracted. Your timing sucks, I just turned in the McLaughlin book a couple of days ago as I couldn't renew it any more. Are you sure that you can't get it through ILL?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

By sheer luck my local library just got a copy, but it's in library use only. I'm gonna have to find out how to get downtown with destroying my already jam-packed scheduale. I rechecked the Google Books snippet view, and the first three mentions are all about the latter Sevastopol, so I don't think there is that much info on it. Just remember to skim through and see if there is anything on her that's not already cited when you get the book. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole chapter on the entire class so bring some change for photocopies when you go to the library. Just be sure to check the index for later references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try my best, or might just jot down notes. Do you happen to know if military installations participate in inter-state ILL? Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

They should, I've gotten books from Ft. Leavenworth and the Air Force Academy before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll see if Edwards Air has it. Buggie111 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate dragging conversations on forever, so I've settled for asking for it from the closest library that has it, which is University of Denver Penrose. Buggie111 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are you at? Your ILL people will ask for it from whoever is closest or has a copy available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Penrose is the closeest, but IDK about Edwards. But, this settles it. Buggie111 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

I'm working on expanding the article on the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre, and I was wondering that with your extensive experience with naval articles, you might be able to look over my version of the article (which is here) and tell me what I might need to do to get it to a B class article. I would really appreciate it. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 06:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Completeness is going to be, I think, your biggest problem. See ARA Moreno for one example, although it is more complete than you'd need for B-class. You're going to need more on what the ship did in British and Chilean service, so you're going to need to dig to find that out. Books on British battleships will take care of the technical history. I'd recommend Burt's British Battleships of WWI for the best coverage of a ship's activities which may suffice to cover that well enough. I expect that her story in Chilean service is going to be the hardest thing to discover. Use Google Books and newspaper archives to supplement whatever you can find. If you read Spanish you're in better shape than most of us so be sure see what has been published about her in Chile. Most of the reference books commonly used are very expensive so I'd advise borrowing them from Inter-Library Loan through your public or university library. You're also going to need to have at least one citation per paragraph to meet the referencing requirement. Good luck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Scheina's Latin America is also good if you're interested in ships from the region. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure, you were looking my version (User:Bernstein2291/Sandbox), not the main space article right? Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 04:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was looking at the mainspace article. I don't think Benninghof is reliable because he doesn't cite any sources. I'd like to know why he says that Almirante Cochrane was going to be named India; I can't find anything that says as much, though I haven't seriously looked. At any rate that bit should be saved for the class article; this one's pretty strictly about the ship. See if you can find out more about her WWI service as well as her post-Sailor's Revolt history. Your citations are sufficient, but their form needs improvement if I was going to quibble.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What you you mean by improving their form? Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say references. The only thing about cites is that everything must be consistent or at least logical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GAC

Keep up the good work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HNoMS Mjølner (1868)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS Minotaur (1863)

Hello! Your submission of HMS Minotaur (1863) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

4.7 BL vs QF

Rod, my sources specify BL rather than QF for the guns on the Minotaur, but QFs are BL by definition so it probably doesn't matter. Now I am trying to ID some 5-inch BL guns from the 1860s. I'm leaning towards the idea that they were the 70-pdr Armstrong BL guns that supposedly were never issued, according to Lambert, but would like a bit more confirmation. Only a few ships received them, which sorta supports the idea that they were the 70-pdrs. Any thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, yes indeed QF guns were technically still breechloaders, but they represented a huge improvement over the existing (i.e. 1880s) British BL guns in the ability to deliver firepower - a whole new generation - so I think the distinction needs to be made. See Template:VictorianEraBritishNavalWeapons for what I've tried to make a complete list of all British "approved" service weapons of this period.. based on official British manuals etc. There would have been many new weapons being evaluated at any time but as far as I know Britain would not have trusted in action anything not in that template, not after the stuffup with Lancaster guns in the Crimea. The only 5-inch breechloader in official service I'm aware of was the 1880s model quickly replaced by the QF 4.7 inch. The RBL 40 pounder Armstrong of 1860 was 4.75 inch and remained in service quite a while, it was found useful, and was called "BL" in at that time. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There are entries in Holley that give the Armstrong 70-pdr a diameter of 5 or 5.5 inches so I'm pretty sure that the references are not to the 40-pdr.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If it helps at all, the main difference between QF and BL was in the charge. QF guns used a metal cartridge that could be a 1 piece shell, BL guns usually used a cloth cartridge and were almost always separate cartridge and shells. The main difference was in the seal at the breech end; a QF shell was shaped to seal the breech itself, a BL breech mechanism needed to be sealed manually (ie a screw or sliding block breech). Note that this is an extremely simplistic explanation and the British tended to produce enough guns to break the logic once in a while. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

In case you not watching you may be interested in this Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Time to limit nominations --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming question

I just noticed a slight inconsistancy in the naming of four articles: Imperator Aleksandr II-class battleship, Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr II, Russian battleship Imperator Aleksander III (1901), and Russian battleship Imperator Aleksander III. My Russian is a bit rusty, but I thought that the transliteration of "ndr" would be more appropriate than "nder"; however, two of the four ought to be renamed for consistancy. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, I agree and have moved those articles that needed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Goeben

We made it. Many thanks for helping finish the article, especially with OSN etc. This round's on me ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! <lip-smacking noises> Now, what to do for an encore? Breslau's a possibility as are the WW2 German ships. I'll be tied up for the rest of the month with the Cup, I expect, but I'm open to ideas for afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually had the same idea about Breslau. I'm working on a draft of Bismarck class battleship in a sandbox here, if you're interested. Let me know once you've won the Cup, and we'll figure another project out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Eventually we'll run out of the sexy stuff like BB/BCs and be reduced to Operation Middleweight (cruisers), Lightweight (destroyers) and Flyweight (DEs); no point in waiting until then to work on some smaller fry. I've got some good stuff on the wreck of the Bismarck that I can hopefully contribute.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, cognrats on Goeben. If you guys do Breslau, remember to do Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau and maybe Mediterranean Division, if I don't decide to work on it for the next month. Buggie111 (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't wait on us; I'm going to be pretty well tied up with the Cup for this next month. IIRC, the pursuit article is actually in pretty good shape; probably only needs a bit of expansion and sourcing to be ready for GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a magazine (Military History) article on the pursuit, but I think it's been sucked into the void. I'll get onto it (the division article) when I find time. Buggie111 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen seems to have added SMS Lorely to the division lineup. I don't remember running into it, so I'd like your thoughts. Buggie111 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Look in the FAC for Goeben; I think that he mentioned it there as a yacht or something in Constantinople.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should I put it in the FT draft? Buggie111 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly it did, so I can't say for sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Finally sorted my email out. Hope it worked! Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the details....

You should have caught this on all of the notifications: [2]. You were advertising the old archived nom! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooops! I'd really prefer not to leave everything to the WikiGnomes, but stuff like this makes me think that I should.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Defence (1861)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: FTCs

When topics are failed, I've noticed that when the articlehistory is added, adding in the GTCfailed doesn't need to happen, that can just be removed. I'll modify the procedures to take that out. I'll promote the other topics as soon as I can. I was going to knock most of those still up out this weekend, should be a lot easier now that you've handled a few. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the Greco-Persian Wars one, i don't really have an opinion on the topic itself. If you're up to supporting or opposing, by all means do so; right now it's too deadlocked to pick any, more input is needed from some FT regulars. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Norwegian monitors

Hey Sturmvogel,

Yep, I found quite a lot on the various monitors. I'll get on it tomorrow, or on Sunday, depends on the weather. What I can say regarding the class is that Thomassen states (p. 12) that Mjølner, Trudvang and Thor were all "built using plans by John Ericsson himself". Mjølner was built in Sweden, the other two in Norway. What I notice is that while Mjølner and Trudvang 100% identical, down to the last detail, Thor is about 500 tons bigger than the other two. Maybe Thor is a development on the first two? The source doesn't say. Manxruler (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no hurry, maybe I'll just copy over the stats from Mjølner to Trudvang to jump-start that article since it's a John Ericsson-class ship. All of my sources agree that Thor was larger, but I wasn't sure if that was correct without checking against Norwegian sources. It's quite probable that she might have the same relation to Trudvang as did Loke to the other John Ericsson-class monitors. Hmm, note to self, compare the dimensions of the two ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another one of these for you

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on HMS Courageous (50), Courageous class aircraft carrier and List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy; promoted to A-Class between September and October 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. -MBK004 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)