User talk:Sturmvogel 66

Baby got tired

Two years was long enough, I think, between archives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Aye there, 'Sturmvogel 66', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ibuki-class armored cruiser

Allen3 ^talk 08:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Minotaur-class cruiser (1906)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Resistance (1861)

Materialscientist (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitán Prat

My edit was based on what looked to me like a consensus at this discussion. Srnec (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was rehashed on a larger scale here and it was determined that Capitán Prat and others were to be cut from the project's scope. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

HMS Nairana

Hi mate, just a note that I haven't forgotten this, and expect to get hold of the Tassie ferry book this week... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No rush, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, material was spread throughout the book so I decided it was easier to just write it up myself rather than scan and send -- see article and talk... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mahan comments

Keep it coming! Pendright (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment: Not "the" range, "a" range and "a" complement, not "the" complement. What's up with these?’

According to Hoyle, an article precedes a noun or noun phrase and determines something definite or indefinite. An indefinite article (a or an) points to nonspecific objects, things or persons. The definite article (the) points to definite objects, things or persons. In my understanding, the statements I made meet the definite article criteria.

Pendright (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you've got it quite correct. "The complement of the destroyer was" is perfectly grammatical, which is what I think Hoyle was referring to. But "the destroyer had a complement of" is also grammatical. In the first example, complement is the subject of the sentence, but it's not in the second example, which is why Hoyle phrases things the way that he does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thank you. Pendright (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the Design section of Mahan, I agree with you that most of it is better suited in the Mahan-class destroyer article. The section has a number of inline citations, and when I try to delete the section I foul up the notes. Can you help me out? Pendright (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You might check out a book called Blood on the Sea: American Destroyers Lost in World War II. It might have some useful stuff for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Blood on the Sea appears to devote four pages to Mahan. I ordered a used copy from Amazon – thanks. Pendright (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

824th TD

I think I've finished up the last of your outstanding comments on 824th Tank Destroyer Battalion - anything else you'd like me to have a look at? (I've tracked down a copy of the Gimlette book, which is an interesting travelogue but sadly light on the sort of detail that transfers across easily) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

See my recent note about the lede with 3-inch towed guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on the problem there - surely the lead should mention it? I've omitted any mention of the early SP organisation in the lead/infobox as it's not clear they ever actually had that equipment other than on paper, but the 3" guns were definitely used from July 43 to March 45, including all but ~six weeks of their time in combat. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'd missed that. Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the March 2013 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 118 points from 15 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

re:15-inch Dahlgren from USS Catawba

Hi Sturmvogel 66. Yep, I found it highly unlikely. Not just unlikely that someone would loot the gun, take it to Hong Kong, drop it in the harbour for someone to later recover it and move it into a museum, but, most importantly, that this could all happen without any on-line news coverage at all (granted, news from the 1980s are a bit hard to find on-line, but still, there should be some reference somewhere). It would be one extremely interesting detail, if it could be backed up by a reference, but as it was it looked very dubious. If it could be properly verified, and given some more detail, the how, when and why, it would have made a good hook fact for DYK. Manxruler (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since it would be only the third surviving 15-inch Dahlgren in the world. The other two decorate Ericsson's grave in Sweden.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

According to a note on page 265 of the book The Defences of Macau: Forts, Ships and Weapons Over 450 Years (found it on Google Books), there is a 15-inch Dahlgren at the coastal defence museum in Hong Kong. No info on where it's from though. Apparently Dahlgren guns of various calibres were used in the coastal defence of several colonies in the Far East. Manxruler (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Commons photos prove that the gun is there, but I'm more concerned about the claim that the gun is connected to Catawba or not. I suppose it's barely possible that the Portuguese bought some Dahlgrens for Macau, but the Brits never would have. And even that is a bit dubious because my book on US Civil War artillery documents sales of 15 and 20-inch Dahlgrens to Peru, but doesn't mention any to Macau or the UK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Do you think it would be possible to ask the museum in Hong Kong for some info? Manxruler (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done so, we'll see if they answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Let's hope they do. Manxruler (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Got an email today saying that they'd forwarded to the Museum, so we'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good start. Manxruler (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mahan comments of 14 April

I believe, for the most part, I’ve taken care of the items you mentioned in your Mahan comments of 14 April. BTW, I did get a used copy of Blood On The Sea. Of the four pages devoted to Mahan, only two were relevant and they offered nothing new. Nonetheless, the publication is a good addition to my small, but growing library on Destroyers. Thanks for the hint. Pendright (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Iven Mackay

Are you happy with this article now? There hasn't been any comments for a couple of weeks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You never responded to a couple of points that I'd made earlier. One's been addressed without me noticing, but the other's still outstanding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which one? I thought that they had all been resolved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The one about using "the" in front of Cabinet, as I posted earlier today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the fantastic GA review of Arihant-class submarine........I'm proud to announce that it became the first Indian Warfare GA ever!!!..Thanks a lot! TheStrikeΣagle 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to thank me, you earned it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No...your review was very nice.....I learned so much from it! We are planning to get Shivalik-class frigate to GA next...will try to nominate it in some days from now..and we would love your review! TheStrikeΣagle 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend finding a GA-class or better surface ship article to model your own article upon. I don't know of many on modern surface ships, so that may be a problem, but you can still get the rough idea of what's needed from one on a WW2-era warship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a WW-II era one but I think French battleship Suffren looks good..what do you think? TheStrikeΣagle 16:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that I wrote it; it's a great model. However, it doesn't cover electronics and sensors, which a WW2 ship should, so it's a little lacking, although you'd get the basics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also recommend using one of the standard warship references like Jane's Fighting Ships, Combat Fleets of the World, etc. as well as all your journals and newspapers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Shivalik-class frigate for GA..please consider reviewing it........I couldn't add citations like Jane's and CFOTW as you suggested because they are out of my reach...I'm not financially in a position to purchase them nor my internet connection is speed enough to download one! Cheers, Strike Σagle 09:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, but have you checked to see if any of your local libraries have copies? Or if you can borrow a copy through something like Interlibrary Loan?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also nominated INS Shivalik...BTW can you please have a look at INS Sahyadri and INS Satpura...I think they are a tad too short for GA...if not...I would nominate them too..Cheers, Strike Σagle 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the first mentioned article. Some paragraphs still lack citations. Explain the function of the electronics better (what are their types/purposes, etc.) because I don't have a clue what some of them are. And you'll need coverage of the ship's activities in 2010 and 2011. That sort of thing is usually the hardest info to get for modern warships, but your use of periodicals makes it a lot easier. Dunno when I'll have a chance to formally review it as things are pretty busy for me now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If possible, please tell me which paragraphs those are so that I add citations...Thanks for the quick review..:) Take time..... Cheers, Strike Σagle 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Nairana (1917)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian Battleship Potemkin

Hallo, I've got as far as I can with the GA review of Potemkin. The article needs to do three things in my view to pass the GA: the main one is to cover the legacy of Potemkin - the legend or myth; the inspiration to revolution; and the subsequent Eisenstein film (which oddly is in the lead and the See also but isn't discussed, and it needs to be - how far is it true, what was E. building on, etc. I suggest that would be best in a "Legacy" or similar section.

That indicates also that the See also list needs attention, possibly removal with incorporation of any wanted links in the text - for instance, if the other mutinies inspired or were inspired by Potemkin, then that needs saying, with citations.

And the current "Mutiny" section ends abruptly - well, did the ship sink or didn't it? Clearly it was fit to be towed home three weeks later. The gap needs filling.

All the best, your GA reviewer --- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hector-class ironclad

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Arkansas

Hey Sturm, is there anything else you wanted to see done on this GAN? Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just some duplicate links. Check the GA page for a script to find them all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire GA Nomination

First off, I wish to state that I feel collaborative nominations within the Good Article project are an incredibly salutary methodology, one that implements both assured quality and efficacy into the process. This is why, especially regarding articles of immense importance, such as the subject article, I contact prior, prolific editors to the article in order to ascertain whether or not they might wish to participate in a collaborative nomination. This is why I contact you, along with a few others, in order to recruit for a nomination of the above article I am planning. I myself am a minimal contributor to the article, but have always been fascinated with the topic. Would any of you wish to collaborate on this planned nomination? Thanks! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your invitation, I must regretfully decline it because I don't have the time available right now to work on it. Contact me again in several months and I might be available to help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I was planning on nominating the article. I wish to inform you that if time becomes available to you to work on this project, feel free to jump in the fray. Thanks again! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

MiG-3

Hello Sturmvogel,

I'm aware the change I made to the MiG-3 page is contradictory to the initial position of the article. However, no references were provided to back up the claim that the MiG-3 was less manoeuvrable than the Bf 109, while the test pilot interviewed by 1C Studios (which is a trustworthy source) has first hand experience and claims the opposite. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wTZjYGyl-4 ] He also mentions the reason for this at the end of the video (smoother stick than the Bf 109). Keep in mind that wing load isn't everything, the FW-190 for example often outturned planes with a lower wing load.

I hope we can find more sources to back up either finding. Tervan (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look through Gordon, et al, but the key determinate may be at what altitude was the pilot talking about. Above 5000 meters, the Soviet pilot may well be correct, but, unfortunately, most combat on the Eastern Front took place at lower altitudes and he never engaged a 109E at lower altitudes. I don't know, but everything that I remember about the MiG-3 called it a pig maneuverability-wise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He called the MiG-3 "more manoeuvrable than the I-16 [by a wide margin] at any altitude", and the I-16 is regarded as being slightly more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 Emil. He also mentioned it is hard to fly at low altitudes though, so maybe the generally inexperienced WWII pilots had difficulty pushing the plane to its limits. Let me know if you find more sources about this! Tervan (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the video, but there were no subtitles so I don't know what he was saying as I don't speak Russian. Was he talking about flying the replica with the Allison engine? If so then his opinion is of no relevance whatsoever to the version of the very heavy, but powerful, AM-35 that was flown during WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You can enable subtitles by clicking the subs icon on the video. However, you're right. This particular MiG-3 is "65 red", which is one of the Alison equipped replicas. --Tervan (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even if there's an AM-35A engine in existence as they didn't make that many before switching over to the AM-38 for the Il-2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Hague Convoy Database

Hi! I'm reviewing Talk:USS Leary (DD-158)/GA1 right now, and the article employs Andrew Hague Convoy Database as a source. I saw that there are at least four Royal Navy ship GAs you wrote using the same, so I'm assuming the source is a WP:RS, but could you please let me know, for future reference, what makes such a website a reliable source (I'm still fairly new to the GAN reviews, so I'm sorry if this should be obvious to me). Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The main thing is that Hague is a published author on that topic; I've got a couple of his books in my library. So he's presumed to know what he's talking about. That said, he doesn't cite his sources which means that he really can't be used for FACs as they require highly-reliable sources, which most Internet sources aren't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, alright then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar question regarding reliability of another source in the Talk:Robert Surcouf/GA1 GAR, so could I trouble you to comment there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Slice up the Battle of Kursk article

I see you were interested in trimming out Battle of Kursk article. Gunbirddriver is also interested in seeing what can be done about the size of the article. I think your suggest for trimming the article is very practicable, and I expanded on it (See the talkpage), but I think it can still use more ideas. What are your thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR#June 4

You've nominated Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi for June 4 (71st anniversary of loss) but I notice that it's the 100th anniversary of the launch of SMS Markgraf the same day. So it looks as though it's a warship for TFA that day (!), but which is the better choice? Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Markgraf. There's no effective difference between 71st and 72nd anniversaries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese_battleship_Musashi

Good to go, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Brillant; I'll go ahead and nom it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Sturmvogel 66! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		For your reviews of the 509th Composite Group and Pumpkin bomb Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Most unexpected, but thank you. Happy to help out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wipe out

Much obliged for your Mahan comments, but somehow they have been wiped clean from my talk page.Pendright (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is ever lost on Wiki. Go to you View History button at the top of the page and try a couple of saved versions around the time that I made my comments or shortly afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unable to retrieve anything! Pendright (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean User talk:Pendright#Mahan comments? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Pendright (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Op-ed

I do not expect that people will work through the entire list in the order laid out, as you pointed out people will work on whatever tickles their interest regardless of whether or not its a current project in someone else's portfolio or not. As phases change, or as work narrows in one particular area, I would expect (in fact I've been anticipating this) that editors will either arrive to work on the new material or drift away do the absence of old material. I also suspect that other projects (like WikiProject Biography) will take an increased notice of OMT when major work shifts to the phase most associated with their stated goals. One thing you and Ed both missed here too is that the material in the Phase II-V lists for OMT is still somewhat incomplete in that there are more detailed areas to include (weapons depots, shipyards, etc) and hashing that out will be part of the task we will face as people come in to work on newer material.

As for battlecruisers of the world, I am glad to have been informed of this since I was unaware of this development. I'll see about adding this to the op-ed at some point tomorrow or the next day, but right now its 4:30AM here and I'm exhausted, so this ship is heading to port for the night :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand, it's just that your draft gave more the impression that people would be working on stuff in lockstep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Conte di Cavour-class battleship FAC

Hello Sturmvogel, I'look at Conte di Cavour-class battleship and see if there's something important missed from Bargoni's book. If there's something that I can't directly add I'll report it to you or in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conte di Cavour-class battleship/archive1? Demostene119 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulation for the new FA. May I ask if you have another Italian battleship FAC to work at?--Demostene119 (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not immediately, no, but I do plan on working on the individual ship articles for Conte di Cavour and Guilio Cesare sometime over the summer to bring them up to GA status or better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Mahan article

I was never able to retrieve your last set of comments. Although I did get a brief glance at them before they vanished. I did modifiy the article based on what I could remember, which was not much. I changed some wording in the lead; got rid of the section you said belonged in the class article (but used a bit of it at the end of General characteristics); tinkered some with complement; changed the text on the extent to which Mahan was refitted, and that’s about it. For my part, I’d like to continue. But if that’s not possible, let me thank you for your ton of help and invaluable insights. Pendright (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been kinda busy of late and haven't been able to check out your article since April. All of my comments are visible on your talk page, so I'm not sure what you think has been list. I vaguely remember commenting on the article's talk page; have you checked there to see if there's something there? I'll try to look over the article sometime in the next couple of weeks, but no promises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever time permits, will work for me. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto

Hi! Since I'm aware of the Project Majestic Titan and your contributions in the field, I thought to drop you this as a heads-up: I'm currently developing the Battle of Šibenik article which is in itself unrelated to any battleship, but I stumbled upon information that AA guns originally installed on the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto were reused by Yugoslav People's Army (or possibly navy: the source is ambiguous in that respect since the coastal artillery was normally operated by the navy but the source specifically cites its commander by name and rank identifying him as a part of the army) as a part of the Žirje Island coastal artillery battery. I added a short passage on that in the battleship's article for future reference. In addition, there's this newspaper article (containing a photo of one of the guns) on refurbishment of two of the guns (all 12 were removed after 1995 from the island) which are expected to be returned to the now disused battery site as a part of a museum. Contents of information panels designed for the museum may be found here.

I did not research how Yugoslavia came in possession of the guns though. I only assume those might have been a part of Italian war reparations, but I have no solid information on that. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for letting me know about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nagato-class battleship

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle location advice

Hi! I need an advice re defining battle location in the Action of 1 November 1944 article. Freivogel source used in the article specifies a set coordinates indicating that those are reported by British sources (page 65). This is all nice but the same source provides a map of where the wrecks are found (located in 1999 and 2000) (page 51), and while the coordinates are not specified in the map, it is possible to determine that those are not in line with those reported on p.65. The two sites are only 10 km apart, but I'm wondering which set of coordinates should the article report in the coord template - those specified by the Freivogel prose or a point in between the three wrecks? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd compromise and use the British coordinates, while mentioning in a note or something that the wrecks are not at those locations, possibly due to drifting while sinking, etc. If you actually have coordinates of the wrecks, provide them, otherwise don't bother if all you've got is a more general map.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kampon...

...redirects to Imperial Japanese Navy Technical Department, for which it seems to be a nickname. Something like our DAPRA, maybe? Might be worth a link. Good luck with the FA candidacy. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for researching this and for your good wishes. I knew that the generation of boilers before the Kampon models were designed by a Japanese admiral, but never got around to looking in to it any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Temp

°C this is from the book: Gröner, Erich; Jung, Dieter (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945 [Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe, 1815–1945] 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-87021-790-6. In the Russian-language sources, too Celsius. The Germans have never measured in Fahrenheit.--Inctructor (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

USS Monitor

Aye there Sturmvogel 66, Perhaps I was too hasty upgrading the rating on the USS Monitor. If it is not fully referenced or fully complete could you give me a brief summary as to what exactly is missing? It seemed pretty well covered. What is the most important topic that is missing? Perhaps I can write it up and provide citations. Thanks for looking out. (Add: Wow! I just got a load of all the awards you've received. Just wanted to say thanks for your GREAT efforts.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Every paragraph needs a cite and it's lacking info on the the memorials and display in the Mariner's Museum, etc. This is going to be one of my summer projects and I plan to take it to GAN and eventually FAC as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'd love to help. My interests are primarily in Early American/British and Civil War naval history and over the years I have collected and outlined a good number of sources. If you are wanting for other and/or alternative sources, you might want to check out the bibliography I've put together: ( Bibliography of early American naval history ) It has a fairly large Civil War section. So large I'm thinking about splitting it off to a separate page. Hope it helps in the effort. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Help would be great, although I have a few questions for you: I think the Civil War portal is useful for these ships, but I question why the general US military portal is useful. By your logic that would be true for every ship/Army unit/fighter squadron, etc. and I just don't see that. The general military portal is more useful for things higher up the food chain, IMO, like numbered air forces/fleets/armies, etc. And, while I like what you've done with the bibliography page, and, yes, you probably should split off the Civil War books, adding a link to it in the see also section seems a bit redundant when the most relevant books for that ship will be listed in the bibliography at the bottom of the page. But maybe that's just me as I'm not a big fan of See also sections.

There are a couple of things that you can do that would be very helpful in the short term. Create a Further reading section after the bibliography and move every book that's not actually used for a citation there and start to convert every book that's still in the bibliography into the cite book format. BTW, pages are not used for books unless you're using a chapter from a compilation like Battle and Leaders or a journal article.

I think that we're pretty good on the description of the Monitor and her background, so I think that we need to focus on what the Monitor did during the actual battle, what she did after the battle, her sinking, rediscovery and recovery, as well as memorials, and all that other stuff at the end of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see you've already trimmed the Portal links: Yes, what you say makes well enough sense. (i.e.higher up on the food chain - haha!) Have added a 'Further reading' section and have moved one unused source -- am checking for others. re: Link to Bibliography of early American naval history: Well, it's redundant inasmuch as it contains sources used on the Monitor page, but it still has many that are not that very likely may be useful for further info/citations, so for now it's best to keep it imo. Last, I'm not quite clear on this: "pages are not used for books unless... " Are you referring to the Cite book parameter '|pages=123'? Last I have added cites and a source for Delamater's (noting he is from NYC) advice to Bushnell to consult Ericsson and for assurances of the floatability of the Monitor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that you'd added |pages=xxx to a couple of books and I just wanted to tell you that it's not generally necessary. OK about the bibliography, I'm not fond of the link, but you do have a point. Just be sure to update it whenever you split out the Civil War books into their own page. Thanks for starting the further reading section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continued on the USS Monitor talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reviewing the Operation Whirlwind! Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to do it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I need a bit of a practical advice over at the HMS Aldenham (L22). One source (Green) here claims she took part in bombardment of El Daba, Egypt with RN destroyers Croome, Hursley and Eridge. Another (Kemp) claims here, p.192 exactly the same minus Aldenham. Is any of those two sources to be trusted more than the other or should the article note that the sources differ on that point? I tried looking for a third source, but had no luck with that. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jurgen Rohwer, the Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945, says that only Aldenham and Eridge bombarded El Daba. This [1] is off by a month and mentions the other two so I'm more inclined to go with Rohwer as I've found him to be very reliable. If you need the full cite for the book, you can pull if off the library page on my userpage. It's page 191 if you want to cite it. Can you get the Mason book? That ought to be the best source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no access to the Mason book. I'll use the Rohwer source though, thanks. Kudos for the 400th GAR taken up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good luck with Aldenham.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New Photo

Sturmvogel, thanks for uploading and including that great photo of Monitor's gun and turret mechanics. Looking at the replicas, they must have been beautiful to behold in their day. I'm not clear on something. Are the gun and gun-mount in the picture also replicas? The gun looks restored and real. If not did you manage to get any photos of the actual gun, etc? I think the article would do well if it had a small gallery (4-6) of such photos, perhaps in a gallery section, at or near the bottom of the page. If you have the photos I can manage the gallery mark up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

They're replicas, the real guns were in preservation tanks when I was visiting, although I think that they're out now. Galleries are generally discouraged, although I'm tempted to add one as there are still one or two more pictures that I'd like to add. Let's hold off for now; we may be able to add enough text to make more room for photos. I've received the Clancy book and he's going into a lot of detail on the turret recovery in 2002, though I'm not sure how much detail will make it into the article. Haven't gotten very far yet so we'll see about post-recovery details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, galleries are not usually found in ship's articles, but then this article might be the classic exception, given the ship, the famous battle, the turning point in history for warships and of course the rediscovery and many available photos of the artifacts. I'd love to see photos of the restored guns if they exist. I'll search around and see what I can come up with. Another option for the photos would be to contain them in a collapsible box, with information in the captions of each photo much the way I've done here (using only one collapsible bar of course). Something to think about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You also might want to check out John Broadwater's (Monitor Marine Sanctuary Director) Book which I've added to the bibliography and have referenced in the Monitor article some days ago. It's available for partial viewing and many pages are indeed available for viewing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Claw

Hi, I see that you are interested in the history of the Cold War and I wonder if you could help me copy edit an article from the very start of it, Operation Claw. I have written the original article in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and I translated it into English, but as I am not a native speaker I am sure there are parts that need to be corrected. I try to have it look ok before I upload it, so I did the translation on a sub-page of my user pages on Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Project boxes for Monitor

Your input is needed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Medway (1928)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article HMS Medway (1928) 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; feel free to ask any questions you might have about the process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators, I am very pleased to present to you this A-class medal with swords in recognition of your fine work developing the USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, and HMS Warrior (1860) articles to A-class status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR and IAR

Hi. I noticed your comment here about sometimes changing the variant of English if it doesn't seem too big of a deal. I have probably done the same myself in the past. We are not really supposed to do this; can I suggest in future if you are doing this and it seems uncontroversial (perhaps because of strong national ties to a topic?) that you make a note in article talk of what you are doing and why? This makes it easier for others to see when and why it was changed in the future. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to remember whenever I do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for French destroyer Espingole

Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tosa

Just to let you know, I've got the review page watched, so I'll be able to help out with reviewers' comments and such. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, appreciate the help. And feel free to revise it as needed. I cleaned some more problems today before I nom'd it, so it may still have some (hopefully minor) issues that a fresher pair of eyes might see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We haven't heard from you. I know you already told me you weren't interested in this dispute anymore even before I took it to DRN, but can you spare us some of your time to give your say on the matter? EyeTruth (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You were named as a party to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. While you don't have to participate, it would be nice for you to stop in and give any thoughts you may have about this dispute, including what I believe the best method for forward progress is. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to help out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

She Has a Name

Hi Sturmvogel,

Thank you for expressing an interest in the She Has a Name articles. Because you commented on the featured topic candidacy for these articles, I thought that you should be notified of their proposed merger. Any comments you are willing to provide there, whether in support or opposition, would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You might have missed...

Talk:French destroyer Espingole/GA1. I really shouldn't be reviewing for the competition here but... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten, just been focused on other stuff for the nonce. Since the only thing that matters for the Cup is if you have enough points to make it into the next round, true gamesmanship would be to cause your opponent to score as many points as possible if you already think that he'll have enough points to make it into the next round, thus depleting his stockpile of articles. I'm sorta figuring that 500-600 points ought to suffice, but I expect that I'll need to get enough articles ready for FAC in the final round that I'll exceed that number handily. So not so silly as it might seem at first glance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I already exceeded my last year's performance - I'll be happy to get into the finals. I just write and work on things, hoping to get enough together to get into the next round. Take the time you need, I just didn't want you to have not seen it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I know that I don't really have a good chance of winning it this year, despite appearances. My time for writing is going to be severely limited for the next 4-6 weeks, which means that I really won't have enough time to build up a big enough stockpile to be competitive for the final round. Still it's a good motivator, which I need when I have to build 40+ item lists, which I really dislike.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Courageous, Glorious, Furious
Thank you for covering historic battleships with class, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 185th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 185th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

USS Texas

OK, I stand corrected, the Texas wasn't a pre-dreadnought. But she wasn't "the first American battleship" either, since she was preceded by ironclad and wooden battleships. So what was she? First steel battleship? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ships of the line weren't referred to as battleships by the USN or by very few navies in general. And there were no ironclad battleships built by the US, although the term "battleship" is starting to gain popular currency when ships of the line were converted into steam ships. If you need a hard and fast definition which really wasn't in contemporary use, she was a turret ship, but all of my references just call her a plain battleship, not even a pre-dreadnought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true. "Battleship" is simply an abbreviation for "line of battle ship.". According to OED the word goes back to the 1790s. The Battleship article refers to wooden battleships. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the origin of "battleship", but navies didn't use the term officially.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Source? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple. See Russian Warships in the Age of Sail, p. 22.; The Age of the Ship of the Line, p. 4; The Sail and Steam Navy List, All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815-1889 which doesn't even use the term for the ships that it covers, preferring to use the "rate" system, as do many other sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, you want to restrict "Battleship" to its formal usage in navies. Fair enough, but we need to make it clear that's what we're doing. Most readers define "battleship" much more broadly, and if you just say "the first American battleship" you're not being sufficiently clear. Also, you might want to look at Battleship with an eye to making it more consistent with this definition. While you're at it, look at pre-dreadnought Battleship which defines that term more broadly than you do. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that I'm actually quoting either Reilley and Scheina or Friedman, so it's not just my opinion, but I'm moving and don't have either to hand at the moment to check. Didn't both citing because it's not a controversial statement, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm perfectly fine with your usage and I'm not insisting that you provide citations. But it has to be clear to the reader exactly how you're using the word. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you told me your definition of "Battleship". By "your" I mean one that makes sense to you, it doesn't have to be original. (Citation not required.)--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You created a LOT of German World War II destroyer articles. Howicus (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now I just need to get back to them and get them all up to GA status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I've been working my way through Laser Brain's comments at FAC and I think I am close to finishing. As I don't have easy access to the source, can you suggest a slight expansion to "Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders bankrupt before a grant of £50,000 was awarded to keep them solvent.<ref>{{harvnb|Lambert|2010|pages=34, 37}}</ref>"? LB was asking what sort of indecision. Was it design changes? Changes to the specifications? Both? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working the article over for me. I'm in the process of unpacking after a move so it may be a few days before I can dig up the appropriate books. IIRC, I don't recall Lambert getting into details, but I'll see what I can find between him and Wells.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's a real pleasure to work on such an interesting article. Anything you can find; most of my sources are on WW1 and WW2 ships, other than the Padfield one I worked into the article today. I don't think there's a terrific rush. --John (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. It's always good to get an opinion from someone who's at least familiar with ships when two knowledgeable editors clash over appropriate levels of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would rather err on the side of being too detailed rather than not detailed enough in these articles. We tend to forget that general readers may not have the depth of knowledge to understand the material unless we tell them. --John (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

*Here's another one: "Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the Armstrong guns, which had not proved successful in use, were removed and her armament was upgraded to the latest rifled muzzle-loading guns." Was it a one-for-one replacement? I seem to recall it may not have been. If this is in your source I think it is worth mentioning. --John (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I'd messed up the dates of the refit so it wasn't as easy to make the association as it should have been. But that's fixed now. Got a couple of questions for you about Padfield. In the last sentence of the armour section you added a bit about ramming, but the problem is that the ship's knee bow made it impossible for Warrior to actually ram an opponent. What does Padfield actually say about this? I'm thinking that maybe this should be moved into the general description. And the ship's propeller wasn't vulnerable because it was completely underwater. I've reworked some of the bits that Laser brain complained about, can you look over my changes and see if they make sense? BTW, I plan to nominate Russian battleship Potemkin after this is finished, if you'd like to take a look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll look out the exact quotes in a while, I just woke up. Padfield says that the ship had a strengthened stem to allow it to ram, but that its extreme length made this impractical. Regarding the prop, he compares it with Gloire and mentions this as an area in which the French ship was superior. I suppose the shaft could still be damaged if unprotected and above the waterline. Love to have a look at Potemkin. Later today. --John (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Warrior also lacked handiness in manoeuvre because of her extreme length, and this was considered a disadvantage as the old galley tactic of ramming had come back into fashion now that warships had regained the power of free movement denied them in their sailing years. Indeed, the Warrior had a strengthened stem for this purpose.

Peter Padfield, Battleship, p24

The one vital point in which [Gloire's] design was more effective was the complete protection for rudder and screw; the British ship with counter stern and no armour at all was dangerously exposed.

Peter Padfield, Battleship, p24

--John (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Did you get a chance to look out that source yet? Quite apart from the article, you've whetted my appetite to find out now... --John (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm visiting family right now and won't return home for a couple of days, but I did check before I left and Lambert shows the propeller, shaft, engine and boilers completely underwater. So I read Padfield's comments as applying to the steering only, which was totally exposed. Lambert also says that Watts steered a middle course between factions that wanted a ram bow and the traditionalists who wanted the traditional bow profile by reinforcing the stem and providing an overhanging knee bow that vitiated against the possibility of any successful ram. I had a section explaining Warrior's lack of manoeuvrability up earlier, but somebody seems to have removed it and I'm wondering if we should restore it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That'd be great. I was mainly thinking of Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders bankrupt before a grant of £50,000 was awarded to keep them solvent. though which is the last challenged statement we haven't addressed at FAR. See what you can do. I'm about to move house myself so you have my sympathy. --John (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Just addressed it now. Started to expand the restoration section, which may well need a copyedit once I'm done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū

G'day, Sturm, not sure if you've seen my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū, but if you could respond, I'd be more than happy to support the article's promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Been busy moving these last few days, but I'll try to get to them once I unpack the appropriate boxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I know how that goes. Getting ready for another move at the end of this year. Fun...not. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk DRN report

Sturmvogel, I cannot find the DRN report discussion being referred to, even though I did make a number of comments there earlier. All I can get to is some sort of brief outline. Is there a link to get to whatever it is happened after I left? Sorry to bother you with this one. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's in a flip down menu. Click on it! Okay, I got it. But reading through there I do not see the support for Blitzkrieg that EyeTruth is claiming, nor do I see a definitive conclusion that would warrent his inserting the phrase into the article again. Okay - back to the salt mines. Oh, I mean talk page... talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

GAR

BGM-75 AICBM, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Marceau

Hey Sturm - I went about as far as I could with the Feron Warship article and what I could scrounge from Google Books. I'm guessing since you added them, you might be able to add some details from the Gaulois article and Gille's book. If you have the time and inclination, see what you can do. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can take a stab at it next week sometime once I'm back home. Should we rename it French ironclad Marceau, first?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that, since the class article is at "ironclad". I'll do that now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you just love it when sources disagree with each other as just about everybody disagrees about the armament. Gille even disagrees with himself on the number of 65 mm guns between his summary table and his detailed description of the armament. I'll probably go with the latter since it describes where the guns are located. Once I'm done I'll send it up for a B-class review, but I'd prefer to wait until the end of the month for the GAN so it will count for the final round of the Cup, if you don't mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rhys-Davids

I have time if you are ready to complete it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be able to look at it in a few days. Please look at the comments that I left last time and make the necessary changes before I look at it again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugle op-ed

Hi mate, moved your draft into the upcoming issue here, and borrowed your 2010 Wikicup award as an image. If you'd like to pick a different image, or want to edit the text (I only italicised your section names and fixed a typo) then pls feel free, but I would like to try and despatch it before midnight GMT (tomorrow morning Sydney time). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Very impressed with your fine work on ships. Keep up the great work and congrats on the FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Hi, Sturmvogel. Wats up. Your vote is needed in the Kursk talkpage. So this time around Nick-D has suggested that a poll on the suggested wordings would be the best way to avoid the whole drama and reach a conclusion. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK. CHeers. EyeTruth (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Nice work on Template:Sclass-! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Right back at ya!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Scott (harbour-master)

Aaah, I see you are busy with GAs - well done. A couple of days ago you reviewed Daniel Scott (harbour-master) and raised points about the tunnel below the prison. I have tweaked the article and recorded this at the DYK page. Would you take to re-look at it when time permits. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (Warrior)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on HMS Warrior (1860). I really enjoyed working on it with you, and I look forward to working on more with you in the future. John (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you kindly, sir. Thanks for working so hard on improving the article. Hope your move is going well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Awful, but it looks like the worst is over. Just unpacking now, and very sporadic Internet. Keep well. --John (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

At least the worst is over with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How about that?

Are you familiar with these editors: User:Ranger Steve, User:EyeSerene, User:EnigmaMcmxc? I thought I was pretty reasonable in the recent debate that lasted some three months, but I must tell you that whenever I read your responses I was always impressed with your ability to make a sound point, your willingness to concede on matters that were not essential, and your readiness to make allowances for others. Then I happened to be doing a little research and read through this. It turns out there are a quite a number of seasoned editors with a broad base of knowledge, great balance and tremendous patience. I’m a bit of a potato farmer in comparison, but I have been happy to have a chance to work with you. Tip of the hat! Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I've had my own tiffs with various editors where I may not have been so reasonable, though not, I hope, to the level exhibited by Blaablaa in your diff. I know that I have a quick temper, so I try not to respond when it's running hot; there's rarely any real urgency about anything on Wiki so there's really no need to jump right into a heated discussion. I also learned a while back that you pretty well have to compromise on Wiki as you have no means to force your opposing editor into doing anything he doesn't want to do until enough other editors agree with you that you can declare a consensus has been formed that overrules your opponent. So I try to choose my fights carefully. Sometimes you and your opponent have such fundamentally different ways of how to cover a topic that you can both be talking past each other and misunderstanding each other's points, so it's always good to ask for outside opinions because you might actually be wrong, or at least misguided. It's important to remember that every editor is equal here, regardless of any specialized experience, learning or academic credentials; that's hard to do when you place more weight for whatever reason on a particular author/source while your opponent does the same for a different author/source. Forex, EyeTruth places a lot of weight on Clark while I don't, based on a couple of academic reviews that I've read. Despite all these potential issues, there are some great people here to work with, don't let yourself get discouraged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sound advice. Thanks much. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Good Articles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 13:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Defence-class ironclad

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pennsy-class article

I am in the process of revising the articles on US battleships commissioned 1912-23. One of my primary goals is to put information on armament and propulsion refits in the table where it is called to the user's attention. I don't want users to think that these ships started WW2 in their as-built configuration. I do agree that this information also needs to be in the body of the article; however, I think that this "buries" the information.

I apologize if I have disturbed your talk archives by my reply method; this is my first reply to another user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobDuch (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally I prefer to respond on the talk page where the discussion started, but this is fine, just don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes or hit the signature button above. I understand what you want to do, but you need to understand that we already get complaints that ship infoboxes are too long and there have even been proposals to hide them entirely. That's why we've generally compromised on giving the infoboxes with just as built data. For ships that were thoroughly reconstructed between the wars, I've sometimes added another infobox showing just the differences so avoid needless duplication. One example is HMS Renown that you might productively use, although I wouldn't think that this could be justified until the post-Pearl Harbor reconstruction that added the twin 5"/38, etc. You may not be aware that there's a group of us battleship enthusiasts over at WP:OMT that you might find of interest and where we hash out a lot of these sorts of details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been avidly data-mining military reference books, especially naval, since I was 10 (and I'm now over 50) and my usual approach is to simply look something up in the table. However, I've only been editing Wikipedia a few weeks. I saw that the infobox on the Penn-class page was hidden, and I found that a hindrance to my usual approach. I personally am quite good at finding what I want in the middle of large amounts of data, but I recognize that others might not be, so I'll try to keep infoboxes reasonable in the future. I went to the OMT page and pulled up the user list but couldn't figure out how to add my name to it (I'm such a noob). I started with the Wyoming-class through Nevada-class because their articles were of respectable length, though uneven quality. I am hoping to make the Tennessee- and New Mexico-class articles more informative than they currently are. Anyway, I'll concentrate on other pages than the Pennsylvania-class for now.RobDuch (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob, welcome to OMT. I've been working on most of the first-generation US dreadnoughts (in addition to other things) recently, so I'd welcome your help with the Wyoming class page. I can probably also lend a hand with the other US dreadnoughts if you need it. You can find the work list here, so if you'd like, you can add your name to the articles you plan on improving (it helps collaboration since it's easier to tell who's working on what).

As for the infoboxes, the general consensus is as Sturmvogel describes. The problem is, most ships are rebuilt or modernized throughout their careers, and so trying to put all of that information into the infobox becomes excessive. This is especially true for cases like the Bismarck-class battleships, since two ships already had slightly different characteristics as originally built, and Tirpitz's AAA battery and radar outfit were continually improved over the course of the war. The same is true for the American standard battleships - the Wyomings in particular, once you add in the wide array of anti-aircraft guns carried by Wyoming as a gunnery training ship. When the box becomes too cluttered, it tends to confuse general readers. One thing we need to remember when writing articles is that, by and large, the people reading them won't have a clue about these ships. We're here for them as much as we're here for the specialist readers. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been using the as built stats for the infoboxes, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's no reason why we couldn't pick the stats for some other significant date, provided that the main body covers these changes in detail. This last is key as everything in the infoboxes needs to be cited to something in the main body, most especially all the FA, A-class and GA-class articles for which it's a requirement. And MOS says that you can't cite the entire infobox separately, so that needs to be fixed wherever that's been done already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we'll need to define what FA, A, GA, and MOS are. ;-) FA, A, and GA are article assessment levels—you can see a list of them here. MOS is Wikipedia's long and complex manual of style. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And Ships has its own MOS at WP:SHIPMOS and here are the guidelines for using the infobox: Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95

Hi! Thanks for assessment of the Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 article. I have added the missing cites now (originally the cite found at the table head was meant to cover the contents). Could you please have another quick look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I didn't even notice the cite in the header. Generally I only use those if everything in the table uses that cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you're right to do so - I'll use that referencing style too from now on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Kawachi-class battleship

Some time ago you told me BTW, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from fixing these trivial issues yourself. I accept this as a sarcasm and idea to "go away". For sure: then and now I am able to do this. But I prefer translate your really good articles (no sarcasm - something about half of my GA articles on pl.wiki are yours). And sometime I want to educate peple, because then I will have less work. Your`s Kawachi-class battleship (if there is something like "your article on wiki) don`t pass "ferret test". Not all converts with inches have |0. For example "The shell of the 4.7-inch (120 mm)" - its 199 if you will convert by hand. And in my personal opinion all such sentence as "The design was then revised with the turrets in the hexagonal layout using the same 45-caliber 12-inch guns " should be also converted.

Last but not least - thank you very much for Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy/archive1. That`s my next target to translate to pl.wiki. PMG (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In my previous response, I wasn't being entirely sarcastic. I think that we just have differing standards as to how often a conversion is necessary, so I'm not willing to spend the extra time to convert things more than once, no matter how long the article or list is. So feel free to add additional conversions if you feel it's necessary. That said, if I failed to provide a conversion when I should have by my standards, feel free to point it out and I'll fix it. Just remember that no conversion is necessary on first use if the weapon is linked, only on the second. Remember how the conversion template works; it goes by significant digits so that 4.7 inches goes to 120 mm, which is really close to the real conversion of 119 as you correctly noted. But also remember the difference between nominal caliber and real caliber. I know of a lot of 120 mm guns, but zero 119 mm guns, even though the latter is more correct; maybe people do that because it's easier to say and type out, I don't know. Similarly, German 150 mm gun are actually 149 and some change in bore diameter, but are officially designated as 15 cm guns.

As for the Kawachi-class article, I converted 12 inches in the first paragraph of the Background section, I really don't think that readers need it converted again in the following paragraph. If you feel differently, you are free to add it yourself.

I'm glad that you like my articles and that they've been helpful for you for the .pl wiki. It's nice to know that someone is paying attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Settsu

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:HMS Grasshopper

That'll be great - I'll stick it on my watchlist so if any queries come up regarding the sources I used then I'll be able to answer them. Miyagawa (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Kawachi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese ironclad Kongō

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Kongō-class ironclad

I had just approved your DYK nomination for this article when I realised that the image in the hook was not the same as the one in the article. Would you like to put this right informally by either adding the image to the article or by changing the image attached to the hook to the one actually used in the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to have taken no notice of the above request and because the DYK is now in the prep area, I have added the image to the article myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your request.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submarine, sir

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Saberwyn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Kawachi-class battleship

The DYK project (nominate) 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kongō-class ironclad

The DYK project (nominate) 04:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

INDEX

Hello

Do you have idea why in this edit there is INDEX below last template? This page is in main space so its (probably) automaticly indexed. I am asking because here there is quite a lot of warships. PMG (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps you might ask on WP:Ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Grasshopper (T85)

The DYK project (nominate) 23:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Warrior-class cruiser

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the reviews of the two gold pieces. Thanks again. I will make a point of returning the favor and reviewing one or two of yours!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to thank me; your work deserved the promotions. If you want to review any of mine, I wouldn't object, but that's really not necessary. I've reviewed some of your coin articles at FAC and knew that not a whole lot of work would be needed on my part.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Sturmvogel, your contributions to our project have been exemplary. I was wondering if you might wish to run for an RfA. If you do, it would be a privilege to nominate you. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind, but I prefer to focus on content creation rather than admin drama.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Access to the admin tools may assist you in specific ways during content creation too; from FAs to GAs to DYKs, you may from time to time be able to put the tools to productive use and for the benefit of this project. If you change your mind about the admin bit. do leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am very pleased to present you with this A-Class medal with swords to acknowledge your success in developing Russian battleship Potemkin, List of sunken battlecruisers, and Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū to A-Class status. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Duke of Edinburgh-class cruiser

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

N3-class battleship edit

The N3's are more accurately described as developments of the super dreadnaught, in that they were derived from the combat experiences of the QE and Revenge class during the proceeding war. Also the link I gave leads directly to that section, to save the reader wading throughout the entire article. I have redlinked the 1914 U4 design concept. If we had an article on that, the lineage of design would be clearer. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Superdreadnought is an obsolete term after the end of WWI and wasn't actually used much by the RN proper; it was much more a journalistic term as it has a bit of a fuzzy definition. And the design evolution is almost directly from the G3 battlecruisers which bore almost no relation to any previous design. The G3 reflected the lessons of the war, but it was a clean design to maximize the amount of armor, speed and weight of armament. The novel armament layout was necessary to shorten the length of the armored citadel and save weight that could be used elsewhere for speed or number/size of guns. The U4 was the baseline design, but was heavily modified over the next couple of years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

cheers for the informative response coming from a real expert. I think a U4 article would be good. It would cover a missing link in Brit battleship evolution. I have redlinked it in mainspace. I am plucking up courage (its scary) to submit my first articles. WW2 Brit and commonwealth field rations. 3 articles. I would like to have a crack at creating U4. I need mentoring and advice on article creation though. Respect. Irondome (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the easiest thing to do is to copy the format of an existing article that is already rated GA, A-class or FA. The N3 and G3 articles might help you how to figure out what to do with U4, although I honestly don't have much material on that design so I don't know how much specific help I can be. Have you seen WP:OMT, a group of guys who work on BB/BC articles? You can ask there for help/advice/guidance or you can ask me if you'd prefer. Don't start out too ambitious with ships, it's far easier to do an article for a ship that had a short life than to do something like one of the QEs that fought in two very busy wars. Also saves money on getting the necessary references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

U4 would be great for that as it was a paper design. Could start it out as a stub naybe and develop it over time. Any queries I would dircet at you, though I will also approach the team that you suggested. I would only ask essential stuff, so would not burn up your time. Your nautical library is a great resource of itself. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, while I have a really good library, I have very little on the U4 design, which would limit the amount of info in the article. And may even make it non-noteworthy if sufficient information can't be found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a problem. Irondome (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not at all sure that the design was really significant in any major way because a quick look through my library found very little. And I'd rather have no article at all than one that will remain a stub forever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexington/Battle of Wake Island

Hi Sturmvogel, I saw you reverted my edits to USS Lexington (CV-2). I made these edits because while I saw links in the article to Wake Island I saw none to the Battle of Wake Island, and I thought these links would be helpful. Am I missing something? Thanks. Spinner145 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to the battle under the word "siege" in the lead paragraph. WP:Overlink says a term only should be linked once per article, optionally, once in the lead and again the main body. If you want to add a link in the main body, I won't complain, but earlier you'd linked it twice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for the explanation, but I don't see the first link you're talking about. The only use of "siege" in the article is "besieged" in the second paragraph of the lead, where you removed the link I created. I'm not trying to make an issue of this or anything, just want to avoid making unconstructive edits, esp. to a featured article. Thanks again. Spinner145 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was in there originally and didn't realize that you'd added it. I've restored it. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, cheers!Spinner145 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dresden class GA

Hey Sturm, I finally got around to responding to your GAN review. Figured I ought to let you know. Thanks again for waiting on me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've figured out your editing pattern during the semester well enough to wait for you. No problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, while trying to dig up that article on Dresden, I stumbled on this scanned WI article on Union monitors and their turrets - don't know if you're aware of it, but thought you might find it useful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got that issue and I used when I wrote about the Milwaukee-class monitors. Thanks for looking out for me, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am very pleased to present you with this A-Class medal with swords to acknowledge your success in developing Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, Japanese battleship Mutsu, and Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō to A-Class status. Well done, and keep on cracking on! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tachikawa air disaster

Can you please give a quick check to the newly added image to this DYK, and if it's okay (and everything else is; I did make the change you requested to the article's lede), give it the appropriate approval icon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AJ Savage

I recently placed a request for a Class B-assessment of the Mahan-class destroyer article I’ve been working on. I saw your AJ Savage article there, and I decided to read it. After skimming though the first paragraph of the Design and development section, I observed the word that was used five separate times. If it was by design, accept my apology. If it was not, then maybe I’ve repaid you for some of the past help you’ve given me. Pendright (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What word are you referring to? I don't pretend to be perfect, it's very easy to become blind to your own prose mistakes because you stop reading what's in front of you, only seeing what you meant to say. So, no, I don't have any problem with anyone who points out a problem in any of my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The word is that, which was stated in my initial post. I merely pointed out, in good faith, my observation of the number of times the word that was used in the paragraph - nothing more, nothing less.

With that aside, might you consider taking one more look at USS Mahan (DD-364)? Pendright (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful to put quote marks around words that are being discussed to help identify them. OK, I'll look it over. I'll try to look it over, but no promises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! Pendright (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 27 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Hi, I can see that you have nominated North American AJ Savage for GA-class today. Do you want me to have a look at it an in return you review my GAN, which is Sukhoi Su-35? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've undone an edit of yours

My dear Sturmvogel, I've undone your edit at Iowa-class battleship. Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines nor Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide say that cites should not be in the infobox. What Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide does say is that "Citations do not need to be provided in the infobox if the information is repeated in the body of the article and cited there (my italics)", and at a glance, at least some of the information and cites you removed from the article are not in the text. The ones that I tested are the cost per ship and the displacement, but I'm guessing there will be others. Losing those cites is damaging to the article.

I agree that infoboxes look smarter if the cite is in the text, but I don't think that's the case here. If I'm wrong, just go and revert my undo - I trust your judgement. Shem (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you've reverted, stating that "All info in (sic) cited in the main body" - but I can't even find (for example) the cost per ship in the text, let alone a cite for it. Shem (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FA congrats

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,331 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

I have a question on fate. According to all my sources and what I find in the internet her commander Joachim Wünning was killed on 22 September 1944. The article states that the attack occured on the 29 September. Who is right? Do you know? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Check here MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The source does say 29 September.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Unicorn on List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

Hello In List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy there is info:

four × twin, five × single 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

But in HMS Unicorn (I72) there is info

2 × 2, 8 × 1 – 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannon 

and

Close-range air defence was provided by twelve 20 mm Oerlikon autocannon, 
in two twin mounts and eight single ones.

So what is correct? PMG (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to check. The light AA armament probably changed over her career as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

FTC

So I saw what you wrote at the Battlecruisers of the World nomination and I can try to be able to close the nomination before the end of October. I can't promise it due to scheduling for my classes on the 31st, but if I'm able to get time, I can try to close it up. Your help with the closing and all that would be very much helpful. So hopefully this can be done on time. GamerPro64 22:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do to absorb the existing topics, but I can do any of the others once I review the closing procedure and have you double-check my work. Just let me know which ones you want me to do. It took me over an hour just to add the nom to the article talk pages so I figure it's bound to be at least twice as much to update the article histories. Like I said, all I need at the moment is the nom to be closed as promoted and the scutwork can wait until whenever it's convenient.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of getting the topic processed now. Might take at least an hour. Also, "Gorget"? Is that like a Halloween pun? GamerPro64 22:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just getting worried about things with only a little time left until the end of the day. I know how distracted people can get when they're focused on something and didn't want that to happen to me. Gorget? I know what one is, but what's it in reference to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not a reference. You wrote gorget in my talk page. GamerPro64 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So I did (bemusedly). No, no weird, but clever, puns. Ain't typos fun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay After two hours of working on everything, I believe the topic is fully in order. If you come across any issues, please let me or Juhachi know. Thank you and happy Halloween. GamerPro64 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for winning the WikiCup GA prize! Your quality contributions to Wikipedia astound me. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! It's amazing how much quality work you've put through GA this year. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And always a good read too. A pleasure to read your stuff. Thanks for providing great material so consistently Irondome (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you. Honestly couldn't do it without you guys who do the reviewing. Keep it up and I'll try to keep y'all busy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your high score, and the GA prize! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

CCI

Regarding your checking of articles at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004 - were the articles OK? Articles without copyright problems get an N check, not a Y. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup awards

Awarded to Sturmvogel_66, for finishing fourth in the 2013 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Awarded to Sturmvogel_66 for the strongest contribution of good articles in the 2013 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for North American AJ Savage

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

More FA congrats

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano 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 11:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese ironclad Hiei

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japanese ironclad Hiei 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 Sasuke Sarutobi -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross in Silver!

		The Titan's Cross in Silver
		On behalf of Operation Majestic Titan and its members, it gives me great pleasure to bestow upon you this Titan's Cross in Silver for your dedication and years long effort in working with battlecruiser articles, culminating in the creation, nomination, and passage of the Featured Topic Battlecruisers of the World. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Let me be the first in what I hope will be a long line of people to offer my congratulations for being only the second person thus far to have obtained the Titan's Cross in Silver. On a related note, I'm interested in hearing from you if there were any others whose participation in battlecruiser FA, GA, and FT processes warrant an award. Ideally, everyone would get an award, and I do intend to see to it that awards for this are handed out, but I figured to start with you and work my way down such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Tom. Most other people are working the battleships, not the BCs. The contributors for this topic were, off the top of my head and in no particular order, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank and Saberwyn. Some of the older articles might have been worked on by other editors before I joined the project, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Congrats! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Very well deserved Sturm, and thanks everyone, for making these articles so authoritative, and fun to read too. Irondome (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks to you both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

von Manstein

I understand von Manstein was a German national. However I don't understand how he can not be considered Polish as well. I defer to your judgment that he didn't consider himself Polish even though I don't know how you know this. I just thought it was interesting that the article mentioned he was Polish considering the Nazi brutality towards the Poles. I will give it a rest. Thanks. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

NFCC

Please revert yourself in this and other articles. That discussion is closed. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was established. There were about equal numbers of editors on both sides. So I will not revert myself and I will restore any further deletions of the image from its legitimate usage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I established a consensus. You can take it to deletion review if you like. It's not a vote, and it's hard to believe that I have to explain that to a longtime-editor. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sturm, what you just said is that you're going to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Please reconsider. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen

That hyphen really doesn't look right to me. The attributes "horizontal" and "return connecting rod" are independent of one another, hyphenating them obstructs the fact. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, now that I look at the link. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for your help with Japanese ironclad Hiei

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your work and your patience with me while I reviewed Japanese ironclad Hiei. It really is appreciated. Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

SS Nubia

Hello, you may remember me from the Tosa FAC. I started this earlier intending to write about the Nile cruise ship before I realized that there were several of the same name. I had a go at creating a starter article here but it could use somebody with expertise in ships to improve it. I'm not sure whether separate articles would be preferred, the 1854 ship I'd say probably has enough for a separate article. I was thinking of creating a general Nile cruise ships article for the smaller steamer. I'm also not sure it the wreck website is a RS, but seemed to be good for facts and figures. Can you help improve this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Each of the ships deserves its own article, other than, probably, the Nile steamer, so go ahead and do that and change the SS Nile page into a ship index page as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Be sure add the relevant ship infoboxes to the individual ship pages. I have no real information on or interest in ships that have no military connection, so I'm afraid that I can't be much help to you. User:Mjroots specializes in them and would probably be of more assistance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. B., do you have access to The Times online? {{Infobox ship begin}} is the bare template for a ship infobox. Other potential sources can be found at WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't I'm afraid, although these a trove archives from Australia which seems to pick up something which can be accessed. I've just split into separate articles. I'll try to add infoboxes tomorrow and find more on them tomorrow. I'm planning on writing a Nile cruise ships article for the Nile steamers tomorrow, I'll put the Nubia Nile boat in that once started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add an infobox to SS Nubia (1854) but it's broken and left-aligned. Can somebody fix it. The data is from the P&O source, wasn't sure what the breadth of the ship it, I put under beam for now. Can you check, not familiar with using that infobox!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed the opening {|{{Infobox Ship Begin}} template and the closing |} and also had an extra set of closing brackets after the plainlist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese ironclad Hiei

Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of TFL on the main page

Following on from a conversation in which you participated over a year ago, a new discussion regarding the Expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 7, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Akagi was the second aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to enter service, and the first large or "fleet" carrier. She was converted to an aircraft carrier while still under construction to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and figured prominently in the development of the IJN's revolutionary doctrine that grouped carriers together, concentrating their air power. The ship and her aircraft first saw combat during the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. During the Pacific War, she took part in the Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942 as flagship of the First Air Fleet. Over the next several months her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia, assisted in the conquest of the Dutch East Indies, and helped sink a British heavy cruiser and an Australian destroyer in the Indian Ocean Raid. After bombarding American forces on Midway Atoll during the Battle of Midway in June, Akagi and the other carriers were attacked by aircraft from Midway and three American carriers. Akagi was severely damaged, and she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Jojhutton's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JOJ ^Hutton 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversions

If the article on a gun is linked in a ship article, it's a bit superfluous to add in a conversion as well. To cover all the bases, I did generally add a conversion later when discussing gun performance data. So you might want to look over those articles to which you've added them and see if they were converted elsewhere in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was just trying to address complaints from younger and international readers that the inch means nothing to them. Give me some time to think about this ! regards, Rod in Sydney. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get fussed about this regardless, but it is a bit redundant to have multiple conversions for the same measurement in the same article. So if you decide to continue to do this, please remove any later conversions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

HNLMS Schorpioen

Hi, Are you planning on developing this article to B class (or higher) standard? If so, I have a few extra photos of her interior and exterior which I took when I visited the Dutch Naval Museum in 2011 I could upload to Commons. Her interior wasn't very impressive though. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I haven't found any good sources for her career in English. So C would be the best that I hope for barring another editor who can read the Dutch material that I suspect exists. You'd said that there wasn't much of her interior that was still intact so unless you've got an interesting shot of her turret or engines, I don't know that I'd bother. I'd like more of a forward oblique exterior shot that better illustrates her turret, but I don't know that that's possible without renting a boat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. From memory, she didn't have any engines - the hull contains a museum space (with displays on the history of women in the Dutch navy and the Den Helder naval yard, from memory), an over-priced cafe and a few restored cabins (the captain's cabin, etc) and not much else. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/GA1

Sturmvogel 66, can you please take a look at this GA review and try to get it moving again? It's been over a month since the last posting, and over three since you began the review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks since I posted this, and in the interim you have started ten new GA reviews, five on December 4, and another five on December 13. In the meantime, this particular review is 112 days old. Before you initiate any more reviews, or start work on the latest five, it's time to give this one your attention. 16 weeks is simply too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Russian monitor Edinorog

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charodeika-class monitor

Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Power/propulsion

Sturmvogel, I see your Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide, but I think it contradicts itself. It says "prime movers" should be under "power", but a steam engine is a prime mover, and that comes under "propulsion". It's a combination of the boiler (the pressure and saturation of the steam) and the steam engine (the type of expansion used, the bore and throw of the cylinder, and other factors) that combine to produce the power generated. I think the guidance works better for modern ships than steam ships. But I'm happy to let your edit stand. Thanks for the interest. Shem (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty logical as I see it since the boilers aren't directly responsible for turning the propeller(s), but provide the power for the engine to do so and thus fall under the power entry. I'd argue that the this works better for steam engines as modern turbo-electric and various combined powerplants are far more confusing, IMO. But maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have been and continue doing a great job both as a Wiki editor and administrator. Thanks and keep up with it. Have a Happy Hoildays & NewYear. DPdH (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, although I'm not an admin.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Beagle (H30)

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, hope that yours are joyous as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/GA1 abandoned?

Sturmvogel 66, it's been four months since you opened this review, and two months since you last posted to it. Despite this, you've opened two groups of five reviews this month, and worked on all but the last one or two. I'd like to suggest that you temporarily suspend work on the more recent ones in favor of getting this nomination moving again: after four months, it needs your attention. Thank you. (Alternatively, if you have abandoned the review, I can certainly put it back into the reviewing pool; in that case, someone in the current backlog drive might pick it up before the drive is over at the end of December.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And the same to you, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, enough...

Enough of this back and forth. You don't want me doing what I'm doing? Fine. Then point me in the direction of something useful I can do. Magus732 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize for that... that kind of outburst isn't helpful... Magus732 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, it's understandable considering that your changes take some time to do. I don't know if you're Wikignoming because you lack the time or resources to expand articles or if it's just something you prefer to do, but there's certainly other stuff that you can be profitably be doing. Ship article titles need to have the ship's name in italics or you could focus on improving their categorization, neither of which I tend to remember to do anything about. Adding convert templates to articles is certainly worthwhile, although I'd suggest you limit your preference for always abbreviating everything. For one thing, I like to show the hyphen form of a compound adjective like 15-inch gun, something that abbreviating eliminates. You could ensure that articles written in AmEnglish use American spelling of units and vice versa; just be sure not to change the type of English unless there are strong national connections like RN ships use BritEng or USN ships use AmEng. Articles on non-English speaking navies' ships have no national connection and can be written in either form; just be sure that it's consistent within the article. And if you'd like to write a ship article, I'd be happy to help as I have a pretty large library; so much so that I don't really consider Jane's Fighting Ships as a top tier resource. Lemme know what you'd like to do and I'm willing to help or provide advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and Happy New Year!

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his great efforts in the December 2013 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 109 points from 16 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Source for that edit

Hey, you might be interested in this book, as it is where I got that information from. I guess it does directly contradict what's on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, you just need to be a bit more careful when entering the info and not confuse order date with laid down date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, I cannot believe I made that silly mistake. Sorry about that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stuff happens; I've done much the same myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of an RfC

The previous discussion regarding an extension of TFLs on the front page in which you commented, has moved on to an RfC on the Main Page. Your comments and suggestions are once again welcome on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an incredible 31 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Japanese battleship Nagato

Hi Sturm, The ACR hasn't initiated prperly, "undergoing" bit is still red. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? It shows blue when I load the talk page and it appears fine on the ACR page itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I had some trouble with a similar issue when I created the book for this GT - for some reason, the template wasn't showing a blue link once the book was up. There may have been a server issue yesterday. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Operation Mascot

Thanks again for the GA review. As a question, do you think that this article has legs for A-class, or is it a bit too thin? I've included just about everything I've been able to find on it, so there isn't much scope to extend it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it's too thin. You cover the background to the attack, the preliminary stuff, the attack itself, and the aftermath, both the tactical side with the German subs and the strategic. I would, though, add which squadrons from which carrier did what, just like you did on your FAC for one of the other attacks on Tirpitz (Tungsten?). I'd also suggest building a navbox covering all the attacks on Tirpitz for easy referencing, split between aerial and sub attacks and consider building them into a good or featured topic. If you need help with any of this, just give a holler and I'll see what I can do or reference for you. BTW, one of my plans for this year is to take all of the RN fleet carriers to GA and a couple of them to FAC to qualify them as a featured topic. So I'll have good info on what squadron is on which carrier with what aircraft when if you need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that feedback: I'll have go at working the article up for A-class over the next week or so. I've been considering developing a List of attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz article (or similar) to clarify which attacks occurred when: there's a useful table of most of the attacks in the British official history which would provide a basis for this. I've recently ordered David Brown's book on the RN's carriers during World War II (finding out in the process that he passed away while finishing the third volume, which is a considerable loss to naval history), so I should be able to help out with developing those articles if you don't have access to a copy. I also own the final volume of the official history, which is quite useful for carrier operations (though Roskill does seem to have been more comfortable writing about surface actions...). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got Brown's book, which is quite good; it, Polmar & Genda, and Rohwer have been my basic go-to books for carrier ops so I'm pretty much set, I think. I've only skimmed Roskill, but haven't been all that impressed, probably because he doesn't go into the level of detail that I typically like. I've just received David Hobbs' new book on British carriers which looks to be quite good and a nice supplement to Norman Friedman's essential book on British carriers which is more of a development history. I'll probably write up a review of Hobbs once I've had time to digest it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.

Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.

For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.

Thank-you.Sent by Dom497 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Sturmvogel 66, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

USS Mahan (DD-364) article is now a GA. Thank you for helping to bring this about. Pendright (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I hope that you continue to work on other ship articles as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive Award

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For reviewing 9 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive!--Dom497 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Russian battleship Retvizan to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,311 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the January 2014 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 79 points from 13 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Engadine (1911)

The DYK project (nominate) 21:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Doria class

Hey Sturm, I finally got around to rewriting the service history section for the article. Let me know if you think it needs more work. I'll do the intro later today or tomorrow and we can think about putting in through the review process once we're happy with it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, the lead is done - again, check for anything you'd like to see changed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that some of that text looks familiar! :-) I added some links and added some trivial changes and I think that it's ready for GA. Maybe this will inspire me to finish off the two remaining Conte di Cavour-class articles once I'm done with my British seaplane carriers. Which is getting frustrating because two of them had significant civilian careers that I'm going to have to try and expand upon while lacking good sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The only bit I lifted from another article was the couple of lines on Italian naval strategy in WWI :P And yeah, get the two Conte di Cavours done - once they're finished we'll just have the Vittorio Veneto and Littorio to do. Even the list, which is the worst part about these things, is already done. Have fun with your proto-bird farms, I'm planning on revamping the two Graf Zeppelin articles with a couple of Warship International articles I have, which will finish up the German CV topic (and of course I need to finish the dreaded list). Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's up for GA now if you want to keep an eye on where the review page will pop up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Have you seen Breyer's book on Graf Zeppelin? And I know I've seen multiple references for the German doctrine for her in various compare-and-contrast books on carrier development that you may not be familiar with. Let me know if you'd like for me to track them down for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now. I have one of Breyer's books on her (or maybe two - I'll have to check the scanned library), and I'd be interested on the refs on doctrine. I do have access to the Warships International articles that were published in the 2000s on her and the navalized aircraft and so forth.

On another note, I've got Littorio and Impero up for GA, and Vittorio Veneto will follow relatively soon. I also restored Roma to its old GA state, with some improvements, so the Italian topic is getting close to being finished. Of course, they'll all need more work (from Bagnasco & de Toro, particularly) before at least Littorio and Vittorio Veneto go to FAC, but they're way down on that queue. It might be time to move the two remaining Conti de Cavours higher in your queue, if you don't mind. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I have the box up here now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick question...

Hey, is there a template to indicate an infobox is needed? An article I just edited, Otranto Barrage, is missing one, and I wondered if I could leave a template so someone can put one in later, or should I just add the infobox myself? Magus732 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that MilHist has any such template, although I know that Ships and Aviation both do. I don't see why you couldn't add one yourself. Template:Infobox military conflict is probably the closest match for the article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sardines (Inside No. 9)

Hi Sturm- I've done my QPQ, could you drop by to give me my tick? Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A-class medal with swords

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the other coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am very pleased to award you the A-Class medal with swords to recognise your work in developing the Japanese battleship Asahi, Russian battleship Retvizan, and Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū articles to A-class standard. These are impressive articles on Navies which are rather under-represented. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Poltava tonnage Comment

I was doing a last-second run through Google Books (which I probably should have done back in '11), and I've found two sources giving different values for the Poltava's tonnage, differing from both McLaughlin and each other. I presumed one of them might have been the slimmed-down weight after refloating, but I dunno where to cram the second one. Buggie111 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with any source from that time as they seem to be using the design figures. The one you added is only 10 tons different from her design displacement of 10,960 so I'm inclined to delete it. The Japanese don't appear to have inclined her to see how much she displaced after all the changes so I don't think that any figure is actually available if McLaughlin, Lengerer and Jentschura couldn't dig one up. I'll wait for your response before I actually delete anything. Congrats for finding the Coast Artillery Journal source, though, I rarely bother looking through Google when I've got a reasonable number of modern sources to use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I knew they looked familiar. Yeah, I'll nix'em. Coast Artillery? That the Antiaircraft Journal? Buggie111 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you scroll a few pages from the front, the name is actually Journal of the US Field Artillery or somesuch. I knew that there was no way that there could be an Antiaircraft Journal only 3 years after the Wright Brothers. I've already changed the entry to match.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if you'd hold off on nom'ing Peresvet (at least until the 6th of March or so), I could get my Russian sources in. Buggie111 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's already at ACR. :-( But go ahead and collect your info and post your changes either here or on the article's talk page. Be careful though, I already found instances with Balakin where he was flat-out wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not the end of the world. And where were these factual inaccuracies, out of curiosity? Buggie111 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That the ship didn't participate in any of the fleet's sorties before the Yellow Sea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Implaceable and Vindictive

Hi Sturmvogel, well done on the GAs HMS Implacable (R86) and HMS Vindictive (1918). Would you mind if I nominated them for DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 19:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead if you can find good hooks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The links are Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Vindictive (1918) and Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Implacable (R86). Thanks, Matty.007 20:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind me also nominating HMS Cressy (1899)? Thanks, Matty.007 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead although I'm not sure if you're within the 5-day limit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, nominated Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Cressy (1899). Matty.007 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cites

Sturmvogel, per WP:CITESHORT there are two types of short citation, one which gives the publication date, and the other that gives the date of publication. I am indeed "changing the cite style" - to a correct one. What I don't understand is why you'd revert a change that is an obvious improvement in line with the style guide. Given the nature of this change, I'll revert while awaiting your response - but if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to change it back again - although I'd be very interested to hear your reason why. Shem (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Citeshort presents two examples of styles, it does not prescribe either. I see no reason to add year of publication as there's no possibility of confusion, which is the only legitimate reason, to my mind, to do so. You may well be accustomed to academic cite formats, but I dislike them and see no need to follow them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

Sturmvogel 66, it's been two weeks since the most recent post to this nomination (and the most recent edit on the article). What's the status here, and can this review move forward? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Waiting on the nominator to furnish requested info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Implacable (R86)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This got 15,000 views! Thanks, Matty.007 17:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty impressive - I did my part and clicked on it yesterday ;) By the way, I don't think you noticed I added a {{cn}} tag to your last article - it's still waiting for B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I never ordinarily ever check how many hits my DYKs get so I have no idea if that's above average. Although from Matty's comment it sounds good. You're right, I completely missed that; I was baking cookies! Thanks for reminding me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty good - back when I was still doing DYKs I know there was a page that tracked articles that got more than 5,000 hits (or maybe 10,000, I don't remember exactly). Nevertheless, what kind of cookies, and where are mine? Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The oatmeal-raisin cookie dough is cooling in the fridge even as I write this. Come on over, and I'll let you sample whatever's in the cookie jar. And I'll even let your daughter lick the beaters from the mixer!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll be right over - how did you know she loves her oatmeal? Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty near universal at that age.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 15,000 is very good; what Parsecboy was (I think) talking about is WP:DYKSTATS, linked in the DYK template above. If you look at my DYKs, 15,000 is my 5 best out of 80 or so. Have fun with the cookies! Best, Matty.007 21:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it beats all of my other DYKs in the last 6 months by a considerable margin. I hope this batch turns out good; the last one was OK, but not great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Cressy (1899)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This one's got just under 10,000 views. Thanks, Matty.007 18:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not too shabby.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Top two in the DYK Stats for March so far, well done with the articles! Best, Matty.007 20:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It must be a slow month if obscure ships are outpulling pop culture.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I nominated Andrea Doria-class battleship for DYK here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Vindictive (1918)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

3c

Hope all is well. Have you had the opportunity to re-read three-cent nickel? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I literally finished going through it again a minute ago and gave it my support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Signatures

Thank you. I do appreciate any advice. Although I do sometimes forget to add the signature, I have gotten better lately. The most recent instance, however, was not because I forgot to sign (I assume that is the one you refer to...Kongo-class battleship?). I DID sign, and then clicked "preview". Then I saved my post. I came back a minute later to edit my post, and it had an autosign, even though I DID type the four tildes. That has happened before. Not sure why. And while I'm here and on the subject, a question I've wanted to put forth to a knowledgeable Wikipedian for some time: why, if you have a "bot" that will automatically add your signature anyway, is it necessary to manually add a signature? Is it just a matter of form? I'm genuinely curious about this. Anyway, I do try to remember to sign my posts. 90% of the time I succeed, and I'm getting more used to it. But I don't ever not sign intentionally..45Colt 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Edit: Okay...I see. Although I signed that comment, it registers as not being signed. So I have to sign it AFTER I click "preview comment"? .45Colt 21:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Yes. It's really a matter of form. And a lot of people have very elaborate signatures that the bot won't duplicate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again...

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū 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 10:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

...and for Nagato too. Bencherlite^Talk 10:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to sit down and identify my future TFAs for the upcoming centenary of WWI. Between me and Parsecboy, we've got potential for quite a few although they'll likely be scheduled more closely together than ideal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeat congratulations for Russian battleship Peresvet, and a little reminder re anniversary plans... when time permits. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 22:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear me, another FA? Thanks, Matty.007 16:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Stuff happens, what can I say!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

HMS Hermes

The creation of a separate section, 'Loss', was simply following what appeared to be established Wikipedia practice, viz. HMS Barham (04), HMS Ark Royal (91). The Simon's Bay photograph is indeed of minor importance, its inclusion simply a means of preserving it, and the occasion, for posterity. Ptelea (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, a "loss" subsection is deserved when there's much more detail to be presented. I used one in HMS Aboukir because there was a lot more to be covered with the actions of all three ships and the submarine that sank them all needing to be discussed. Hermes doesn't have nearly enough to justify a separate section to my mind. However, if more details on the rescue efforts, etc., ever surfaced, then it would be worthwhile, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Good Hope (1901)

Thank you for the new article Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Euryalus (1901)

Well, thank you for the article Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Duel

As the current second and third places in this round of the WikiCup, and not separated by many points, I hereby challenge thee to a duel for supremacy! Winner to be decided at the end of this round. Name thy wager. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Subscription required template

Thanks for all your great contributions! When you are using the Subscription required template, it should be placed inside the ref tag, just before the </ref> rather outside the ref tag, per the template documentation. --HarryHenryGebel (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring 3,160 points during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this barnstar. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring the most points during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this Golden Wiki. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1 redux

Sturmvogel 66, this needs your attention. If you're still waiting for the info from three weeks ago (the last time I posted here), then it's probably time to close it as unsuccessful. If that was already taken care of, then it may be ready to close as successful, or need a bit more work. One way or the other, some posting to the review page would be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate, I realise now that I hadn't edited the GAN page to say that with Nick's and the AWM's help we confirmed the disbandment date of the unit. Anyway, Wizardman's closed it as successful now. Were you still able to review Garnet Malley? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Malley; I'd totally forgotten that I'd signed on to review it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Think nothing of it, I only just remembered yesterday (well just after midnight this morning to be precise) that I'd claimed a GAN to review a couple of weeks back... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol

Hey Sturm, I thought you might be interested in this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder if I could get them for close paraphrasing?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's pretty accessible online, you could probably reach out to him... eg Twitter, and his email address is rmfarl2uky.edu. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Matty.007/sandbox/HMS Algerine (J213)

Hi Sturmvogel, I know you are active in ship articles, so hope you don't mind me asking some questions:

• What is "the first S.O. of the Flotilla" ([2])
• Are ship's logos free to use?

Thanks, Matty.007 14:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, found a better report in a book. S.O. is senior officer apparently. Matty.007 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind giving the article a once over before I mainspace it please? Thanks, Matty.007 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A few things stand out. You've misspelled the ship's name more than once and you might be paraphrasing some of the naval–history.net language a little too closely: "foreign action", etc. It needs a thorough copy-edit; you might ask for help from the Guild of Copyeditors. And I'm not thrilled with how you've presented the material in the infobox. Warships don't use gross tons, only merchant ships, and you never tell the reader what DCT and DCRs are. I rarely venture down to ships the size of Algerine because there are so many bigger ones to deal with, but you might take a look at some of my British destroyer articles like HMS Beagle (H30) to see how I like to structure the infobox for WW2-era ships. I hope that not I'm coming across as an ass about any of this, but I do hold all ship articles to a very high standard and this one needs a fair amount of work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost forgot, AFAIK RN ship badges are crown copyright and OK to use, but I'm no expert on copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Typos fixed I think. I'm afraid I don't know much about measuring ships. What are DCT and DCR? What should I measure weight in? Are there any other paraphrasing issues? How can I change gross tonnage to long ton? I will speak with someone about the image. Sorry for all the questions. Thank you for all the help, if there are issues, I would rather know about them rather than be happy in ignorance. Are there any ships more your size that still need creating? Best, Matty.007 18:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the infobox with one that's up to my standards and tweaked your leading sentence because she was the name ship of the class. Depending on what your goals are for this article there are a couple of other things that you can do before you move it to mainspace. The biggest of which is to rewrite the history into something that flows better and reads more easily. Your sources are rather terse and clipped and the current language reflects that. Try to recast it in something that sounds more natural to read; read through existing GA and above ship articles to get a feel for what works well. And I mean a close reading, perhaps even aloud, to really learn what reads naturally. If you want to go for GA, you'll need to add a description section that covers everything in the infobox and replace your web sources with printed ones as much as possible. And, of course, cite at least once a paragraph. Problem with "little boys" like minesweepers is that they're not well documented, even in printed books, and it can be hard find enough information to meet the "reasonably complete" GA criteria. "Swept mines off the East Coast all war" really isn't likely to pass muster, even if that's all the ship ever did. Even ships the next size up, like destroyers, can be hard unless you find a book or two covering the class or, if you're extremely lucky, an actual history of a particular ship.

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with creating stub/start-class articles with a good skeleton as a basis for further expansion by yourself or someone else. I've done that myself for most of the German WWII destroyers, figuring that I'll get to them at some point if somebody else doesn't expand them first. And building the skeleton myself ensures that at least that much will be done to my rather persnickety standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for re-writing the infobox. Is there any chance of getting such a small article to GA? I'll be having a look at some of your other articles to get a feel for what you mean. Thanks again for all the help, Matty.007 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Because she was sunk so early in her career, this article can certainly make GA, although you may have to spend some money on books or find some one who can copy stuff for you. That may not be true for other ships in the class. And one last point, don't be afraid to use other articles as models for your own; that's how I got started. Just be sure that they're GA or better! One of the very nice things about ships is that they're often enough alike that you can copy stuff like the infobox and description sections from one article to the other, only making minor adjustments as necessary, which saves a lot of time and effort.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Was the info about her weight in the book ref you added? Thanks, Matty.007 11:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I added a description section. Thanks, Matty.007 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everything in the infobox can be sourced to Lenton.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I have ordered the book from a library. Are the description and lead prose OK and accurate? Thanks, Matty.007 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You had the sections out of order and I tweaked the text regarding the Oerlikons a little. Otherwise looks OK.

Thank you very much. I don't understand all the stuff on guns. When I have de-jerkified the prose a little, could I take it to GAN? Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be OK, but I'd try and replace as many of the references to Naval-history.com with Rohwer as possible. The former isn't what I would consider a reliable source, although others may have their own opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Lt Cdr Geoffrey Mason is considered quite knowledgeable, and I hope it is a RS, but I'm not sure. I have ordered a second edition of the book to my library, so will have it in hopefully not too long. Thanks, Matty.007 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have the Lenton book now for a few weeks, but I can't see where the deep load weight is? Thanks, Matty.007 11:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I also couldn't find where the make of cannon, and about the depth charges were mentioned? Thanks, Matty.007 11:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What edition are you using? All of my information comes from p. 261 in my edition, which is a monstrously heavy 800-page book. The naval term for ship weight is displacement in case you didn't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the library edition is second edition, which explains a bit. Can I add 261 for the third edition ref to the description section in the article? Thanks, Matty.007 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you very much for all your detailed help working out how to improve Algerine, I appreciate it very much. All the best, Matty.007 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

HMCS Border Cities (J344)

Hi again, paragraphs two and three are largely copyvios of [3], should it be CSDed or AFDed on the assumption the entire thing is? Thanks, Matty.007 11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the book is a reprint of Wiki articles so I don't think that the editor is guilt of plagarism from that source. That said, he may have plagarized from other sources. I'd suggest running the questionable text through a plagarism/copyvio detector and see if anything matches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I should have read more. Copyvio isn't working at the minute (and not brilliant when it does), googling parts of the text got me nothing, so I guess it will just have to be left for now. Thanks, Matty.007 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are a couple of general-purpose plagarism detectors for professors and teachers to run their student's work through that you could probably use if you're so inclined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ran it through a few, nothing doing except WP article, so maybe a book? Please can you explain what "Additional Commanders of the Military Division of the said Most Excellent Order" are, in despatches? (For User:Matty.007/sandbox/Alex Stuart-Menteth if you're interested). Thanks, Matty.007 14:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Might be a book, but I wouldn't worry about it for now since nothing's online. Most, if not all, of the British chivalrous orders are split into civil and military "divisions", so the King was adding new members at the specified grade C.B., G.C.V.O., etc., for each order. Does that help?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Does he get any extra initials? Thanks, Matty.007 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, check to see if the article on mentioned in dispatches says anything about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you see what's gone wrong with the link to Dartmouth Naval College at User:Matty.007/sandbox/Frank Gregory-Smith please? Thanks, Matty.007 20:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong, it's just been renamed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Do you reckon it could be a GA, as again there is a notable lack of info on him? Thanks, Matty.007 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not without a lot more information. Right now, I'm not even sure that he meets the general notablility guidelines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree about the notability, several articles, two in leading daily newspapers seem to make him notable. I looked it up, DSO is level 2A, DSC is 3A, and (excuse my ignorance), a bar is a further commendation for courage and bravery, and he got bar on both (seemingly fulfilling Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times at the essay linked from the GNG for military people. Just to note, I am not finished with it yet, I have a fair bit more to do. Thanks, Matty.007 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Andrea Doria-class battleship

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Would you by any chance have time and inclination to look over this article? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if my internet connection stabilizes; it's been intermittent all week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Formidable (67)

Thank you for this contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Algerine (J213)

Allen3 ^talk 10:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Poltova

I'll be reviewing it today. I also have access to ProQuest, that has some contemporary news article, mostly dealing with her sinking, but I see one or two discussing her service with Japan. Please send me an email so I may send you these.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My email is in the sidebar, or do you want me to contact you first to allow for the attachments? Thanks for researching these for me; I generally only bother with contemporary sources if I can't find anything else of more modern vintage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun caliber

I've looked over a number of warship articles, and gun descriptions of the form 8"/55 caliber (sometimes leaving out the slash) appear to be in very common use. Do you really want to go on a one-man crusade to change all the gun descriptions to the clumsier form, 55-caliber 8" gun? It's no clearer for beginners, and it's irritating to nonbeginners familiar with the other form. --Yaush (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll reformat every designation in articles that I choose to work on in that manner because a link explaining caliber is far clearer than the /XX. That format tell the reader nothing about what /XX means; at least my format, which isn't very elegant, I admit, tells the reader that it's XX caliber with a link. /XX is common only because that's the way the US Navy designates its guns, i.e. 5"/54 Mk whatever and editors just parrot that in the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think you should get some consensus on that first? One-man crusades don't really seem to be the way Wikipedia rolls. --Yaush (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Germans also use the /XX format, though they at least helpfully add an "L" in front of it. The diameter of the bore is more important to readers than the length of the barrel, and putting the caliber first gives it more prominence. Might it be better to reverse the order and refer to it as an 8-inch 55-caliber gun? That way, you can keep the link to caliber while keeping those who prefer the standard USN format somewhat happy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thought about that already, but it reads clumsily when you add the designation to the name as well, IMO. I do think that GraemeLeggett's addition of "long" is a useful clarification that it emphasizes length rather bore diameter as in the very familiar .45-caliber pistol, but it makes things more awkward if you put the caliber after the size and designation. Forex 100 mm Type 40 gun with a length of 65 calibers vs 65-caliber long 100 mm Type 40 gun. Might I point out that this article passed multiple reviews to become a featured article and you two are the first ever to object to the treatment of caliber, so the original text conveyed the information perfectly adequately for ordinary readers unfamiliar with the two definitions of caliber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble in finding a standard format is that navies use different formats for their designations - some include the caliber (as in the American case), some don't (as in the RN), and some did at one point but then stopped (such as the Germans after the 1920s). In the American case, this shouldn't really be an issue, since the formal designation includes the word "caliber" (as in the 8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun). One alternative (and the one I usually use in my articles) is to use the basic designation (which in my case normally includes the length in calibers) and add a footnote that explains the designation (I'm sure you've seen my standard footnote - granted, that's more necessary since it involves German abbreviations, but it might be a good solution). Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That could work. Despite what anyone may think this is really about the best way to convey the information to readers unfamiliar with nautical/artillery terminology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that - the route I chose was to provide the official designation in the prose and then explain in a footnote, mostly because it would have been far too cumbersome to write "38-centimeter Schnelladekanone (Quick-loading gun) Construktionjahre (Design Year) /34 Länge (length) /52 guns" ;) I think your note looks good. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Stalking) I can vouch for Sturm's effectiveness on getting over the concept, so the reader can understand the shorthand, and get the concept of calibres. Having learned the earlier system of notation, mostly from hanging around the Victorian and Edwardian pre-dreadnaughts,(I love Victorian and Edwardian heavy artillery), this new method has the edge in getting to the idea of calibres fast. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese ironclad Fusō

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 00:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agincourt

Hey Sturmvogel, regarding these changes, did the British remove a flying-off platform or a flying bridge from between the turrets? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The latter, I went ahead and reverted the change w/ an explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification—I had it wrong! Toddy1 (talk · contribs), thank you for the change. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

HMS Algerine (J213)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I currently have the two books you recommended, but the Rohwer one doesn't have much info to expand the article with. Do you think it will pass GA as it is? Thanks, Matty.007 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's marginal as you have little information on her short time on the East Coast. It also needs a copy edit, IMO, as the career section is very choppy. Lenton says that the ship was built with single 20 Oerlikons and that the ships of her class later received twin mounts. Given that he doesn't define "later" you can't say that she definitely received them as she was the first ship of her class and was likely sunk before "later" happened. IIRC, I don't see much mention of twin Oerlikons until '43-44 from my research. But you can fix these issues and throw it out there for review and see how your reviewer reacts. Just don't be too disappointed if it doesn't pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a little copy edit, and fixed that fact. I think it's fairly comprehensive, so will likely nominate it for GA soon (I have no problem with GAs failing, having had one failed, and 3 FLNs withdrawn). Thanks, Matty.007 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in reviewing it if I did nominate it, or not? Thanks, Matty.007 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that I wrote part of it, I think that that would be a bit of a CoI. Best, I think, to let somebody else take a gander at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick reply. Best, Matty.007 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his tremendous efforts in the March 2014 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 166 points from 28 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class medal with Swords to recognise your fine work in developing the Japanese battleship Nagato, Russian battleship Poltava (1894), and Russian battleship Peresvet articles to A-class status. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination process

Thank for your help. Pendright (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 28 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the HMS Resolution (09) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Colbert-class

Hi Sturmvogel66; sorry if I'm so late, considering the subject. Your late inquiry together with User:Parsecboy, in Talk:Colbert-class_ironclad/GA1: probably that issue 3e-livraison-1878 (Plan de l'aff t installé au sabord). Make well; --Askedonty (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I'd been wondering why only the text volumes had been scanned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm affraid no definite answer here, it's not about a scan, only a limited display. Indicative is restricted to the similarity in the graphics, the identical legend, the assesment in the Neptunia 2011 magazine. --Askedonty (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for SS Kanguroo

The DYK project (nominate) 11:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA review

Thanks once again for taking the time to do the GA review for Battery White. I didn't realize just how long it'd taken until I saw your two messages juxtaposed—one from April 4, stating that you were going to do the review, and then one from May 13 letting me know that it'd passed. I apologize for taking so long to produce the map, and hope that it didn't cause you any inconvenience. Ammodramus (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it was no problem. I'm glad you were able to figure out how to do the map. I'd have hated to fail it if you hadn't been able to produce one. I hope that you do some more articles in that same vein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For reviewing 9 GAN's (for a total of 25 points) during the March 2014 Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18

Hello

There is article Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18. There is a source - ut I have checked and there is nothing about this specific class. I googled a little and here there is info that nobody knows anything, and here is a info that this is probably some class from World of warships and even they don`t know almost anything except class name. I am not sure if en.wiki should have entry about this class, and definetly I dont know how to handle request for deletion. Can you please, look at this article~and take care of it? PMG (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on it either. I've nominated it for deletion - the discussion is here. Thanks for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this for me; I've been focusing on finishing off the Ise-class BB article and haven't been able to get around to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not RV GF changes

I edited, and will edit again, the Vanguard article specifically because I could not understand how that lead could possibly pass FA with that confusing and poorly written lead. It can certainly be improved, and I want to improve it. The fact that it passed FA means little, all articles can be improved, and "don't change it because it's FA" is precisely the sort of thing that is destroying the wiki.

So unless you have a very specific point about the inclusion, which clearly does improve the lead, I will consider further reverts to be edit warring.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and to pre-flight: separating the first two sentences out emphasizes the historical place for this ship. Currently that is buried in other content. Further, as the lead does not currently state the date construction started, the fact that is was not completed during the war is somewhat meaningless - if it started in 1944 this would be an odd statement. By clearly stating when construction started, that it stopped and restarted and for what reason, context is added. There was also somewhat curious and confusing use of phrases and separation of sentences. So if you feel none of these changes are improvements, by all means, explain away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You have an opinion and I don't agree that your changes add any value. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the article and it does that just fine, IMO. You're adding extraneous details and what you perceive as clearly added value isn't necessarily so. The article was reviewed at FAC for the quality of its text by at least three other people, so it's not just my opinion. While your edits are clearly made in good faith, there's no reason why I can't revert them because they do nothing to improve the article. Your opinion regarding my actions here is merely your opinion and means nothing to me, exactly as mine means nothing to you.

The article can certainly be improved if you think that it skimps on some substantial point, etc., but you should post your proposed changes here for further discussion. As a first response to issues other than your phrasing, I'll point out that linking the guns available isn't particularly important for the lede, only their existence is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have another stab at a compromise here:

...Work on the ship's design commenced before the war because the Royal Navy anticipated being outnumbered by the combined German and Japanese battleships in the early 1940s. The British had enough 15-inch guns and turrets in storage to allow one battleship of a modified Template:Sclass- design to be completed faster than the ships of that class that had already been laid down. Work on Vanguard was started and stopped several times during the war and even after construction had begun, her design was revised several times to reflect war experience. These stoppages and changes prevented her from being completed during the war."

How does that sound? Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's much better and have added it with one minor change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In recognition of your continued sterling performance

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject I am very pleased to present you with your second WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. This award is made in recognition of your continued sterling performance as a major contributor to our WikiProject. This has included two years as a Coordinator (September 2010 to September 2012), three A-Class Medals, five A-Class Medals with Oak Leaves, and five A-Class Medals with Swords. You topped the recent February-March backlog drive, are a regular winner of the monthly contest, are a consistent and keen reviewer, and provide wise advice on various aspects of the WikiProject to all and sundry. You don't engage in groupthink and you ask the hard questions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Peacemaker.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sultante of Singora

Hi there. This is a message for CasLiber, HamiltonStone, SturmVogel and Crisco. Thanks for your help and feeback re: the Singora article. It achieved FA status on Saturday.

I got a message today saying the article will now appear on Wikipedia's home page on June 4. This surprised me. I read somewhere that it usually takes several months for featured articles to make it to the home page.

I've cleaned things up a bit. CasLiber and Crisco noted that the section about Persians in 17th century Siam looked out of place. I've deleted this paragraph.

I've also re-jigged the lead and added:

• 1. Alternative names / spellings to the Early History section.
• 2. An explanatory note re: the foundation of the city in 1605.
• 3. An explanatory note re: Sultan Sulaiman's declaration of independence in 1642.
• 4. A second paragraph to the The forts at Khao Daeng section.

If you have time to briefly glance through it again, please do. I still feel the article can be improved prior to June 4.

Thanks again for your help. I've enjoyed doing this. I finished Oxford University almost exactly 30 years ago, so this has been an opportunity to cast aside some of the rust and dust that's built up over the years. Perhaps I'm not as good as I was, but I think I'm still just about okay!

I'll login from time to time. If you'd like a review, do please feel free to let me know.

Singora (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

King George V/Howe action on 9-11 September 1943

Been inactive for a while now looking to get back into the swing of things by touching up the King George V battleship main article.

Seeing as you have done nearly all the Italian battleship articles I was wondering if you could clarify which Italian battleships KGV and Howe escorted to Alexandria on 9-11 September 1943. Thurgate (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. As best I can figure, they were Italia and Vittorio Veneto. Ask Parsecboy though; he's got the book on the Littorio class ship and can give you more info, although I don't think that they left for Alex until 14 Sep. KGV escorted one of the older BBs, I think, to Malta after 9 Sep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah righto, i'll give him a shout then. This is what I've changed with the lede so far and I was just wondering (ignoring grammar mistakes etc) if its to long and if so what should I cut out. Thurgate (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The biggest thing, I think, is that it's too detailed, as are the accounts of the individual ships. Why do you have actual times? Only very rarely do I mention exact dates in the lede, usually just the year and maybe the month. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the main body. One technique that I've used is that the lede of the individual ship article becomes the career summary of the class article and and class article lede is a summary of those ledes, so a three-tier system. Take a look at Renown-class battlecruiser and see how much detail is there compared to the main body, and then compare that to the individual ship article ledes. And do the same for Conte di Cavour-class battleship and Andrea Doria-class battleship to get a feel for how we're doing things in our latest articles. These last two are FA and currently at FAC, respectively, whereas the Renown-class article is a couple of years old and I probably need to clean it a bit. It's a hard thing to balance the appropriate level of detail between class and individual ship articles and I have a tendency to put too much technical detail into the ship articles. IMO, the class article really needs to focus on the design history and the specifications, to include gun performance data, where the ship article can skim this sort of stuff and focus on the service history. Forex, propeller diameter is best suited for the class article; the ship article should just hit the highlights of the specifications, just enough to provide cites for everything in the infobox.

You've got too much detail in the main body as well; you shouldn't be giving times. Just give a summary of each battle, forex, that KGV and Rodney were able to close to near point-blank range vs. Bismarck and pummeled her to death, with no more than a sentence mentioning the debate over the exact cause of her sinking, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah righto. Right I've trimmed the lede and redone the service history, do you think its still too detailed? Thurgate (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

cite guy in bar

Regarding: I've got to figure out how to use this in one of my articles!, were you successful? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

USS Monitor GA review

Hi Sturmvogel, I was just informed and just wanted to let you know in case you didn't that the GA review of USS Monitor has just been initiated by Peacemaker67. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw. Given our disagreements over the proper approach to the article, I'll let Peacemaker67 make up his own mind about things although I may offer comments from time to time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ise-class battleship

I saw this, and thought I bet Sturmvogel's worked on that. Low and behold you have! I've credited you in the DYK nom. Anyone else you'd advise crediting? (Just noticed that I'm beating you in the Cup! I expect you'll double my eventual score though, you produce loads of top quality ship GAs.) Thanks, Matty.007 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a good DYK hook, so I'm happy to let you do the heavy lifting. No, it's just my work this time. I expect that I'll get points for a couple more FAs this round so I may well beat your score. But getting GA reviewers has been a bit harder this round so I don't know how many more will get done in time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck with the FAs. What was that you were saying about GA reviews (section below)! Any problems with me nominating that if/probably when it passes? Thanks, Matty.007 20:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah, go ahead. As for others, I think I've only got one other GAN in the pipeline.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel any better I've only got two GAs, and one self nom at DYK in the pipe, and am relying solely on whatever I can at the minute. Anyhow, good luck again with the FAs. Thanks, Matty.007 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian monitor Rusalka. Thanks, Matty.007 18:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again again)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Russian battleship Poltava (1894) to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Kronan-thanks

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ise-class battleship

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC

I have made a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrea Doria-class battleship/archive1. May I ask for a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2013 Rosario gas explosion/archive1 in return? Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll try to get to it in the next several days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

GAN - input sought

Hi Sturmvogel 66,

I just wondered if you might be able to give the article French prisoners of war in World War II, currently being reviewed, a look over? I'd be very grateful! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Big gold coin

Hope all is well. If you have a moment, could you take the second glance at Liberty Head double eagle you were kind enough to say you would do?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later tonite. Thanks for your prompt response on Andrea Doria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pevensey Castle map

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I've managed to scan and upload the Pevensey Castle map I mentioned earlier, albeit in four segments that are going to need cleaning up and stitching together. See my recent contributions for the raw scans. I'm going to see if I can get some help with processing them. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent news.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

All done, see File:Pevensey Castle plan.png. I've added it to the article. Prioryman (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Russian monitor Rusalka

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw, but just shy of 10,000 views (9,985), congratulations! Thanks, Matty.007 16:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I was just going through the articles you have worked on and I was greatly impressed. You're a terrific editor WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blackburn Firebrand

The article Blackburn Firebrand you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blackburn Firebrand for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ARA El Plata (monitor)

Hi, thanks for contacting me about this matter; I've provided a response in my talk page, and also I've added a link with additional info about the ship. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

From Jodosma

You seriously need another archive. Jodosma (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Battalion

I noticed your revert of my edit of 118th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht) in which you dispute my spelling of Battalion. I have an English/German dictionary which gives "Bataillon" as a correct spelling. What do you think we should do?Jodosma (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your dictionary is correct, the Germans spell it with one "t"; which is why I'm curious why you changed it to the English spelling that uses two "t"s.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I was caught in an excess of zeal; there was an awful lot of articles with the same error. However, I'm still not sure what we should do about 118th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht); whichever way you look at it, batallion cannot be correct, it must be either battalion or Bataillon. I suppose that since this article is quoting names then Bataillion (capitalised, as in the Langenscheidt) should be the way to go. I look forward to your input. Jodosma (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As per German usage, batallion should be capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No problems with that, I just noticed I spelled it wrong myself above, there should only be one "i", but should it come before the two l's or after; in the Langenscheidt it's after (this seems to be a very troublesome word). Jodosma (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. After looking it up in my German-English military dictionary and checking a couple of German-language unit histories the proper spelling shows the "i" before the two "l"s, Bataillon. I'm pretty sure that I've been screwing that up for years so I'll probably need to check those few articles where I've given German-language unit titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! There must be a lot of other articles with the same error. Jodosma (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Vice-Admiral George Frederick Basset Edward-Collins

Hi Sturmvogel, I wonder if you can find anything on this bloke? I've got this, a mention in a book, and several mentions in the London Gazette. No Wikipedia page, no obits... He was knighted and a vice-admiral apparently, can you find anything? Thanks, Matty.007 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period April–June 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook 18 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to do my bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:KronshtadtBattlecruiser.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KronshtadtBattlecruiser.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)