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.

South Atlantic GTs

I just looked at the pages for Craddock, the 4th CS and the North America and West Indies Station over on the Dreadnought Project and I'm not seeing a whole lot of hope of getting any 4th CS article up to GA. British higher HQs seem to be very poorly covered in secondary sources and I'm not aware of any handy sources that cover them. It appears that the 4th CS absorbed the North American Station sometime around 1907 and the command was not reconstituted until 1915 when Patey assumed command. So it looks like Cradock was still in command of the squadron at Coronel, just with a shitload of detached ships. I suppose we could do a more limited version as an OB topic for the battle, with the requisite list, although that seems kinda weaselly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had the same trouble with the German squadrons (though the East Asia Squadron should be ok when I eventually get to it, there's a good deal on the early years under Diederichs in Gottschall's book), which is why I've left them stubs or haven't bothered creating them. I suppose if Cradock's ships at Coronel weren't actually members of the 4th CS (or if the ships that were assigned to the 4th weren't there) then there's no reason to include it in the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Units that are unique, like the East Asia Squadron, generally attract more attention than ordinary or "line" formations and it should be pretty viable for a GAN. The 4th CS, not so much; hell, I don't even know its flagship half the time, much less what it was doing during peacetime. Maybe we can weasel out of including the squadrons as well, although the East Asia Squadron is far better known and may make that impossible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the units can probably be fleshed out a little more once we've done the articles for all of the ships that were assigned to them, since then at least you'd know what the flagships were and could give a rough narrative of the squadron's activities. This is of course a very long-term plan, since I don't plan on getting to Spee's article any time soon, so you have some time to see what develops with the ships of the 4th CS.

I wonder if we could skirt the issue altogether by arguing that Coronel and the Falklands would be subtopics in a topic about the East Asia Squadron, for example, since the Squadron existed for quite some time before them. It's a little more questionable for these thematic topics that don't have a clear delineation (as opposed to simple ship classes and so forth), since you could organize the same groups of articles a dozen different ways. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno how prepared you are to go down to German gunboats, but I'd think that a topic about the East Asia Squadron would include articles on every warship that ever served with it. But that's just me; like you said you can be pretty flexible with these topics as they're mostly subjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It was more a hypothetical to argue for excluding the squadron article, but yeah, I was planning on doing at least some of the gunboats - probably at least the ones of the Imperial Navy (HRS has articles on them, so why not, right?). Besides, Adam Cuerden needs me to at least do the articles that will use this and this once he gets to restoring them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that HRS went down to the little boys, but I figured that you'd make an honest effort to get those done at some point. Just wasn't sure what documentary support there'd be to support the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is a great resource, and Groener covers them all as well, so between the two I'll have everything I need for service histories and technical data. For a long time, I felt like I was flapping in the wind with these earlier and smaller ships (you know, basically everything that didn't see action in WWI), and now I have some excellent sources. It's like Christmas every day ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So translating HRS is like unwrapping multiple layers of wrapping paper without a knife or fingernails?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not as easy as a gift bag, to be sure, but it's also not as bad as when I wrap presents (which usually involves lots of duct tape and nested boxes), which I suppose is analogous to having to comb through Google books for whatever you can scrape up. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ship article moves

I've referred to you in a discussion at WP:SHIPS on the subject of ship article moves and the need for disambiguation. Yours, Shem (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Shem - I've added my thoughts there. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for your contributions; BilCat called me a moron on his talk page, and then deleted the conversation. I much prefer your approach. Shem (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrea Doria-class battleship

The article Andrea Doria-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrea Doria-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA. I have taken it to Did you know, which will hopefully result in its appearance on the main page: the link is here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Matty! Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

SMS Baden

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking very good, my friend. Your work on these has been exceptional - I dabbled a bit at trying to restore this photo, but needless to say it wasn't very good so I didn't bother uploading it. Anyway, it is a good scan that might be useful for you in the Cup (there are also this one and this one, taken during the same event, that you might want to have in your pocket too, though they're a little rougher than the first one). Just a thought :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Will have a look. Also, not sure if this'll make FP, but:

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks nice to me, but unfortunately the quality (I don't know if it's the scan or the original lithograph) isn't quite as nice as the others. Good luck at FP :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

At a guess, a little of column A... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, more than likely. I wonder if the uploader still has access to them...Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's still editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And there's Fürst Bismarck. And a continuation of my eccentric "name the nominations after lines from 'I'm Captain Corcoran, K.C.B.', becuse that's the song about the rise of the ironclads from Utopia, Limited" naming system.

Very nice - there's always been something that bothered me about that one. I think it's the fact that the forward turret is screwy - the guns don't join the turret right. I think Graf started with either the turret or the guns one way and then by the time he got to the other, he forgot how he started, and then couldn't fix it. It's still a nice image, regardless. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian battleship Giulio Cesare

Can you take a look at the extensive information on the sinking of her in Russian service as it's been expanded recently by somebody who believes in conspiracies. I'd like somebody with neutral eyes to take a look at it and decide what's appropriate to keep. Feel free to trim it down yourself if you'd like, but I'll do it if you let me know what's worth keeping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do, though I probably won't be able to get to it until tomorrow morning - I imagine we'll be cutting a great deal of it after a quick read through. It'll depend on what you can verify from mainstream sources - it seems rather unlikely that the frogmen really mined the ship, but if they actually did admit it last year, then some of the section can stay. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I just found this book by Greene & Massignani (you might have already seen it) and it mentions some of the stuff that's in the article already so you'll be able to salvage some of it, at least.

I can't tell you about the two websites that are in the article currently - for some reason, my job has blocked all online translators - but I'd be inclined to cut those parts unless you can find something sufficiently strong to back them up. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping - don't know if you've seen my reply here. Also, now that the Doria class article is done with GA, shall we send it to ACR? We should probably think of some other articles we can work together on for after we get Royal Sovereign up to snuff - we of course still have the Bretagnes, but that requires some translation work on your part, so you might prefer some lower-hanging fruit. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and nom Andrea Doria class. I've just finished off Giulio Cesare and put it up at GAN. Need to look at her sister and see what needs to be done before I can do the same for her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's up. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Franz von Hipper

I am not sure if this text "Hipper graduated from the Gymnasium in 1879 with an Obersekunda—the equivalent of a high school diploma." comes from your pencil but it requires clarification. The Obersekunda is the 11th grade at a Gymnasium. Students at a Gymnasium graduate after completing the Oberprima (13th grade) with the Abitur. You may want to check into this if this is your wording. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't recall exactly, but I'd imagine I got that from Philbin's book - I'll have to request it from the library and check it again. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work

Congratulations on your achievement via the good topics forum! Tony (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! It was a project long in the making and I'm quite happy to have gotten it finished before the upcoming centenary of the start of WWI. Now the work to get some of the more famous cruisers up to FA in time to run on significant centenaries begins :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a great achievement. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mohamed! Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was off-line for some time and am only just catching up. I simply wanted to add my belated congratulations. An amazing body of work. Ben MacDui 19:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ben - I just have two lists to put through FLC before the monster topic is done ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

IX Corps (German Empire)

I put an new article to the IX. Corps. Could you plese take a look on it and, as it would be necessary, make it suitable. Thanks.--1970gemini 10:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian battleship Littorio

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian battleship Littorio 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian battleship Littorio

The article Italian battleship Littorio you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian battleship Littorio for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again...

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bencherite :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Andrea Doria-class battleship

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This got 6177 views, quite good for a DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Matty, I had forgotten to check :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

USCGC Kukui (WLB-203)

Unfortunately the Coast Guard Historian's Office does not maintain a cutter history on this ship and the task is left to someone on the crew as a additional task which in all likelihood does not get followed up on. I have been working with Illegitimate Barrister in trying to improve the Juniper-class USCG seagoing buoy tender series of articles and neither of us can find any ship history or a picture. She is truly a "stealth" cutter. I guess we have to go with what we have. Thank you for pointing out my lead content error. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know we had any of those in the inventory ;) It's unfortunate no one is apparently tracking the history of the ship. Have either of you contacted the Coast Guard Historian to see if anything can be done? A friend of mine is the current historian at the US Navy Seabee Museum - if the CG Historian is anything like him, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to help someone who's seriously interested in what they do. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will try a contact, they have helped me in the past. The problem will be that they are in the middle of a move to new facilities along with the rest of Coast Guard Headquarters and this may take awhile. Please assess the article as you think it deserves at this point. Thanks for the suggestion. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's C-class for now - hopefully the CG Historian can help you out in some way. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

SMS Emden Suggestion

I have noticed you are currently working on expanding the article on SMS Emden (1908). May I suggest a new chapter Aftermath (or similar)? So far the article does not mention the fact that Emden was awarded the Iron Cross, the only ship I believe such honored. More so, there has been a string of commemorative events in recent years culminating in the exchange of Emden's Iron Cross for Sydney's Red Kangaroo last week [1]. I could do it myself, but since you are already on it, I don't want to interfere with your work. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that needs to be added. I had forgotten about the Iron Cross (and the fact that the second and third Emdens were allowed to wear it as well - don't know about the 4th one). I seem to think Hildebrand et. al. mentioned that - I'll have to check some time later, probably over the weekend. I didn't know about the commemorative events recently. Feel free to add what you think is appropriate, no need to feel like you're interfering.

It might be best to split off the lines I added earlier today about the artifacts salvaged from the ship and add the Iron Cross info and commemorative events to that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a "Legacy" section within the existing text. How does that look? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, that lead image is rather indistinct. Do you have anything that's clearer? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good start, though it still needs the things ÄDA mentioned above. As for the lead image, unfortunately no, there don't appear to be any better images out there. And unfortunately, this ship is a bit too young to have been illustrated by Hugo Graf. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Added a bit more to the section on the Iron Crosses for subsequent ships. I haven't been able to track anything down on the fourth Emden, however. Perhaps HRS will mention it there - I forgot to check over the weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Stormtroop tactics

Interesting that the French began to use them in early 1915. Not so new after allKeith-264 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the French never really used them - Laffargue proposed them in 1915 but his views were not adopted by the French Army. And development in the German Army had already begun independently under Rolf in early 1915. So yes and no, I suppose ;) Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh but they did Introduction to Early Trench Tactics in the French Army SS 143 was derived from French experience among other influences. All the armies moved towards the same tactics as fast as the constraints on them allowed - SS 109 and SS 119 were right for the equipment available at the time. The small scale of German experiments is another example of constraints rather than choice.Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

They did publish Laffargue's paper but they never put it into widespread use - that's my point. They followed the British model and sought a technological answer to the trenches (i.e. tanks) rather than a tactical one. And the fact that they never really understood infiltration tactics factored into their defeat in 1940 (since the German bewegungskrieg was basically infiltration tactics married with tanks). The difference is that the Germans took Rolf's experiments and placed them into large scale use. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Laffargue wasn't the only writer on tactics and the French established the platoon as the tactical unit before the British (see the pdf on Note 5779). The French and British had the luxury of doing both, the French began in early 1915 during the 2nd Battle of Artois and the British caught up as soon as industrial mobilisation provided the equipment in late 1916. The French and British were defeated in 1940, despite not because of their expectations of German methods.Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relatively small scale experimentation is not the same thing as employment on an operational scale. And the point remains that after 1916 the British and French turned to tanks over tactics to break the deadlock. I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about here, since I don't believe I said anywhere that the Germans invented infiltration tactics or were the only ones to use them.

This is getting somewhat far afield but the French were defeated in 1940 for a number of reasons. They failed to learn from German successes in 1918. And more importantly, they failed to grasp what could be accomplished by combining tanks with infiltration tactics, even though Liddell-Hart was rather vocal about it across the Channel (and there were combined-arms advocates in the lower officer corps). Only Germany, and to a lesser extent, the US, examined the developments of 1918 in a systematic way. There are many reasons the French fell in 1940, and that is only one of them. Of course the Germans got extremely lucky that the Allies captured the original plans, which basically forced the adoption of Manstein's sickelschnitt, and of course they were lucky to force the Meuse, but luck only gets one so far. The French bungled their initial deployment, and unlike in 1914, there was no time to reorient. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd Artois small scale? The French and British had the means to change tactics more than the Germans, because they were making war with plenty when the Germans were making war from dearth; they introduced tanks which were a highly inefficient use of resources because they had them to spare but they also generally applied "modern" infantry tactics, restricted in the German western army to small elite forces until 1918, when they got the victory dividend from the east. The operational successes of the Germans in 1918 were followed by operational and strategic success by the Allies, using methods they'd begun to adopt in 1915 and 1916. Tanks weren't a substitute for skilled infantry and artillery but an addition to it. The British had digested the lessons of the war by 1922 and in the late 30s the French had the means to concentrate tanks in tank divisions and a surplus to spread around infantry divisions. In 1940 much of the German "infiltration" was caused by insubordinate lower-level commanders, not by conscious application of bewegungskrieg - that only happened in 1941 and failed. I think you're right that the French were caught out in 1940 and that the speed of internal combustion engined forces got the Germans to Abbeville too quickly for the French to counter them, although Frieser notes that the sluggish French were sometimes only a couple of hours too late. The French also made a strategic error in planning for their main effort to be a counter-offensive, which is why the French air force was better equipped at the armistice than on 10 May. I do recommend that pdf, Note 5779 makes interesting readingKeith-264 (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 2nd Artois is relatively small scale. The attack involved a handful of French divisions, and as far as I'm aware, the French generally only used the Moroccans and the Tirailleurs Senegelais as shocktroops. In comparison, the Germans trained and equipped 44 divisions in infiltration tactics for Michael. If the French and British were as well-versed in use of such tactics on a large scale, they wouldn't have been so surprised by Michael (and they wouldn't have called them Hutier tactics, they would have called them "oh, yeah, that thing we do"-tactics). As far as I am aware, the most common tactic for much of the war was to attack at night from a forward position to reduce the effectiveness of defensive firepower.

The French might have had a handful of armored divisions in 1940, but they were employed to support infantry operations, much as they were in the last two years of WWI, not as an independent tank arm (as de Gaulle had advocated in the 30s, to about as much effect as Liddell-Hart in the UK) - that's the crucial distinction. Infiltration tactics relied on combined arms, and that was not something the British and French had sorted out with regard to armored units (again, despite Liddell-Hart's efforts - even Fuller was thinking in terms of massed tank formations rather than combined arms units). Even by the end of the war, the British Army was woefully inferior to just about everybody else in terms of combined arms operations. And yes, the Germans were lucky in that Guderian et. al. disobeyed orders and continued the advance (and arguably, were lucky in that they had the "right men" in the right places, whereas the French seem to have not), but I'd argue that the conscious application of bewegungskrieg in 1941 had many spectacular successes - Russia was simply too far beyond Germany's capabilities (and represents another classic example of German tactical/operational virtuosity failing to make up for strategic bankruptcy - Michael is but another). Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd Artois set the pattern for French offensives until mid-1916 and commenced with attacks by five corps; Chasseurs were attached to divisions to increase their offensive power. The means to implement the tactics were concentrated at the most important point but were diffused as fast as circumstances and equipment allowed - the four squad infantry platoon introduced by the British was modelled on French precedent. The French tended to attack from mid-morning to mid-afternoon to exploit their heavy artillery. It was the British who attacked at dawn (tho' not always) because of their lack of heavy artillery, see 1 July 1916. The Germans trained their 1918 divisions in open warfare techniques and concentrated their best men in them and the Franco-British planned their defensive battle accordingly; having spent three years fighting against German developments of defence in depth they can hardly be treated as ignoramuses in the means to overcome it. In 1918 the British out-fought the German army and did so by conducting combined-arms operations, despite the filling of gaps with youths and the comb-outs from previous years - the system didn't need only first-class manpower to defeat the Germans. Notice the integration of the RFC and its effect on the Germans on the Somme? Like many of the previous battles, early fog worked in favour of the attackers who had a covered approach and later clear weather assisted the advance but on 21 March the German attacks were held in the outpost and battle zones. It was attrition not manoeuvre which undid the Fifth Army and an understanding that a fighting withdrawal was permitted. The course of the withdrawal surely puts Falkenhayn's no retreat policy in perspective.

I think there's something in the view that the French and British were not equipped with tanks on the scale they intended when the time came but the German success did not occur as part of a plan so much as part of a fortuitous collapse of command authority on both sides - look at what the Germans expected before 10 May compared with what they achieved. I think Tooze's analysis of German strategy in 1941 is pretty convincing and that it explains why Bewegungskrieg was not decisive - German strategy against the USSR depended on a Red Army collapse as much as an Ostheer victory. I don't disagree that the German armies of the C20th were formidable war machines but I think that deprecating the ability of their opponents is not consistent with the evidence, although this has been long in coming and is apt to diminish the capacity of the German armies to impose themselves.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Schwalbe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Schwalbe 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto

The article Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick format question

I work primarily on USAF organizations, but occasionally one sails to Europe or back. What's the format that will put the ship name of, say RMS Queen Elizabeth in italics? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a few ways to do it, but the easiest way is {{RMS|Queen Elizabeth}}, which produces RMS Queen Elizabeth. There are similar templates for USS, RMS, and so forth, and you can play with the template to hide the prefix, or if the ship in question has a disambiguator and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and a

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for pointing me toward a simple template. I can use those

for your trouble.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wild Wolf Sock Puppet Case

Thanks for fixing the syntax error on my part. Would you like me to change your name to mine on the time-stamp to clearly show me as the nominator? --Molestash (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice it did that - fixed. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Sovereign

Take a look at the Royal Sovereign article and lemme know what details you'd consider excessive for a ship article. I usually overload them with details that are probably best left in the class article and want some fresh eyes to take a look before I start using it as a model for the rest of the ships in the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And, if you could, take a look at Royal Oak as I'm updating it in light of our more comprehensive standards for FA and conducting my own informal FAR. How much of the background material in the construction section is appropriate for a ship article rather than the class article? I'm hoping to sort of combine the relevant sections between Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign to give us a big head start on the rest of the ships in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the level of detail is probably fine, though it's organized a little differently from how I'd do it - I usually give the as built specs in the description section and then put all the modifications together in a separate section (for instance here) - but I'm not wedded to that format. I think the only thing I'd trim is the description of the belt, maybe to something like "The armoured belt consisted of face-hardened Krupp cemented armour (KC) that was 13 inches (330 mm) thick between 'A' and 'Y' barbettes and thinned to 4 to 6 inches (102 to 152 mm) towards the ship's ends, but did not reach either the bow or the stern. Above this was a strake..." The origins of the belt armor design is best left to the class article. On an unrelated note, are the longitudinal bulkheads torpedo bulkheads?

I'll have a look at Royal Oak - I gave it a skim just now and I'd cut the first para of the construction section, merge the actual construction info into the history section, and merge the refit info into the description section (though I'd also add a brief mention of each refit into the service section to remind the readers when these refits were happening and in what context). Of course the Jutland section is woefully insufficient.

The refs of course need to be redone to remove the rather odd formatting and to fix the sea of red that is the host of Harv errors. I also went through the images and added US PD tags as necessary - the photo of Dewar needs a source, and the map of Prien's movements inside Scapa needs to have a source for the information. Another thing I'd nitpick: why the German language rank for Prien (and without translation) but not for Dönitz? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I just checked Rohwer, and there's an operation Royal Oak took part in from 31 Aug to 7 Sept that needs to be added (pg. 1) - the only other mention in Rohwer is a brief note on her sinking. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even gone through the main body yet on Royal Oak; just been focusing on the description. I was looking for an excuse to dump the hateful cite format; if your script reports lots of harv ref errors that will do just fine. I never use them so I don't think to check their validity. I go back and forth on how to handle the modifications depending on their size, though I'm leaning more now towards a section of their own for ships that were extensively modified. With, of course, a mention of the refit/reconstruction in the main body to keep the chronology straight. And, yes, the longitudinal bulkheads are torpedo bulkheads. Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to push the stub I created long ago ;) It is a rather odd format to use, especially since the {{sfn}} template makes it so much easier to do harv refs if you want them. I suppose that template didn't exist when the article was written though. As for the modifications, I guess it depends on how much information you have to include - with the Nürnberg example, the Whitley article had quite a bit of detail on the placement of AA guns and so forth, so I figured it warranted a separate section. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bismarck (Otto, not the other one!)

Thanks for replying to this. I've posted some more comments, but am mainly here to let you know I won't be around for a few days, in case you are wondering over the weekend. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I saw your request for further input on the MILHIST talk page. I actually won't be around much over the weekend either, so no worries there ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

German Milhist

Hey Parsec, have you seen this? Might be right up your alley. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Indeed. I should have included you in the invite round given your work on German ships - sorry. If you'd like to participate it would be great if you could post responses today or tomorrow as our (nominal!) deadline for getting the issue out is almost upon Ian and I. Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

SMS Emden

FYI. The German and English article received a substantial number of hits yesterday. This is so because Die Männer der Emden, a German TV movie, was aired yesterday. I did not see it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Schwalbe

The article SMS Schwalbe you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Schwalbe for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A-Class medal with Diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class medal with Diamonds to recognise your fine work in developing the España-class battleship, SMS Emden (1908), and Mackensen-class battlecruiser articles to A-class status. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)